NYT: What's in That Face? A Candidate's Future

New York Times ^ | June 21, 2005 | NICHOLAS BAKALAR

[OESY]

Even though voters often cite competence as a political candidate's most desirable quality, their decisions about which candidates are competent and which are not can rest on as little as a quick glance at a photograph, researchers are reporting.

Moreover, this quick inference can be used to accurately predict the results of an election, according to the study, published in the June 10 issue of Science.

"We have found that these judgments occur extremely quickly and are highly automatic," said Crystal Hall, a graduate student in psychology and a co-author of the study.

..."Based on that finding, it is hard to say whether or not one could truly avoid the influence" of these first impressions....

Subjects were also asked to judge the candidates' honesty and likability, but only judgments of competence predicted victory or defeat.

Why competence alone stands out as a predictive factor is not known. The authors theorize that rapid judgments of competence based on looks, however irrationally arrived at, can prejudice subsequent thoughts about a candidate's other qualifications....

The authors conclude that people may be less rational in their voting decisions than they think. If the one-second test is accurate in determining competence, they report, it may function well as a decision-making technique. Unfortunately, no good evidence suggests that inferences drawn from a person's facial appearance can predict character or skills.

That may offer a bleak picture of voter decision making, Dr. Todorov said, adding that he still sees some hope that voters may consider something other than looks in selecting their leaders.

"Appearance alone is not enough to get one into office," he said. "There were races in which the candidate who won was overwhelmingly perceived as looking less competent than the other candidate. In these cases, the voters knew what they were voting for."

[OESY]

Senator Russell G. Feingold, left, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Tim Michels, his opponent. But, of course, you would have to be brain-dead not to realize that Feingold's positions on key issues and the Times editor's choice and placement of the pictures are significant factors. Placing the Times favorite candidate as the lead photo on the left with a straight foward head shot, i.e., the head is not tilted or slightly out of focus, will skew impressions. Also, keeping the comparison superficial by not disclosing that Feingold of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform wants to increase restrictions on free speech on the Internet and elsewhere just before elections will also help the Times' Democrat candidate.

[kharaku]

Do now the NYT is saying kerry lost because 'The voters didn't like his face" What will they try next?

[martin_fierro]

Charles Grassley seems to have overcome his photo handicap.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Just from the pictures, I can see that Michels made a blunder by tilting his head forward in this photo -- he looks a little too eager and tentative.

However, do not discount the factors that Feingold had the whole Dem machine behind him, the advantages of a campaign finance law that HE wrote (but filled his coffers in advance), and a National Republican Party that did not come forward with the promised supplemental $$$ after Michels won a hard fought Primary largely on his own $$$.

Also, these photos do not reveal that Feingold (for all his attractive head shot) is a little runt of a guy who won't even allow his picture to be taken standing next to anyone.

[CaptRon]

Hillary could be in trouble.

[KarlInOhio]

I remember some polling after the Kennedy-Nixon debate. The majority of those who listened on the radio thought that Nixon won. Those who watched on TV thought that Kennedy won.

[OESY]

Those who watched on TV thought that Kennedy won.

And only after the press informed viewers that Nixon's upper lip had been sweating. Kinda swayed opinion to get the results the MSM wanted.

[skimbell]

This might be a fly in the ointment but you're working from the assumption that the "study" you sight is correct. I live next door to Iowa and I can tell you that Senator Grassley is popular. But what might be surprising is that his immense popularity at home might just be because of his looks not in spite of them. People in mid-America don't pay as much attention to the wrapping as do our "coastal citizens". Simply stated, Grassley looks like he ought to look. Iowans may well favor Grassley because his looks are real and he has, over the course of his political career, been just as real and true to the Iowans that he represents.

How many senators can claim to be that "authentic"

[Redbob]

John Kerry walks into a bar.

The bartender says, "Why the long face, John?"

[summer]

re your post #9 - LOL....

[summer]

re caption from photo in your post #1, from article: "Senator Russell G. Feingold, left, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Tim Michels, his opponent"

Why is the political party of Feingold's "opponent" omitted? Meanwhile, Feingold's political affiliation is included? I don't understand that. Is Michels' political affiliation with a party so obscure the NYT didn't think it was necessary to mention it?

[summer]

I meant to ask: Is Michels' political party that obscure....?