Can You Spot a Republican (or a Democrat) Just By Looking at One?

Political leanings and even electoral potential can be determined just by looking at a face.

Add to Briefcase
Brian Resnick
Nov. 2, 2012, 5:05 p.m.

Enorm­ous sums of money have been spent on polls, ads, cam­paigns, and cov­er­age of this year’s dead-even White House con­test. There’s even re­search that tracks and in­ter­prets the can­did­ates’ eye blinks. But what if voter de­cisions boil down to a quick re­ac­tion to the way some­body looks?

Ima­gine an ex­per­i­ment in which a pair of pho­tos is shown to a group of chil­dren who are pre­sum­ably not versed in polit­ics. One is of Barack Obama’s face. The oth­er is of Mitt Rom­ney’s. After they’ve seen the pic­tures, the chil­dren are asked a simple ques­tion: “Who would you rather be the cap­tain of your ship?”

Psy­cho­lo­gic­al re­search sug­gests that such a ques­tion might be the most rel­ev­ant one of all. The 2008 ex­per­i­ment was per­formed by re­search­ers in Switzer­land, but the can­did­ates were French and the kids were Swiss—mak­ing them even less aware of the politi­cians. As a group, the chil­dren guessed the win­ners of real elec­tions with 71 per­cent ac­cur­acy. They even pre­dicted Obama would win the 2008 elec­tion.

Al­though you wouldn’t think it, just by look­ing at someone’s face, we im­me­di­ately know a lot about them. From bone struc­ture, we know a per­son’s gender. From their ex­pres­sion, we know their mood. We’re de­cent guess­ers of a per­son’s age. But these are the easy ones. Our abil­ity to read faces goes much deep­er than these sur­face fea­tures. Turns out, faces even re­veal what their own­ers be­lieve.

The chil­dren in the study aren’t out­liers.  A land­mark 2005 study by Al­ex­an­der To­dorov, pub­lished in the journ­al Sci­ence, found that people were able to pre­dict the out­comes of the 2004 U.S. Sen­ate and House elec­tions just by look­ing at faces of can­did­ates for 1 second. “This hap­pens without any pri­or know­ledge of the politi­cian’s policies, without any ex­pos­ure to cam­paign ad­vert­ising, and without in­form­a­tion about the politi­cian’s ex­per­i­ence,” said Kerri John­son, a re­search psy­cho­lo­gist at the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Los Angeles).

What is at play is a per­cep­tion of com­pet­ence. In the To­dorov study, the people with faces deemed more com­pet­ent were more likely to get elec­ted. And this no­tion of com­pet­ence is con­veyed, with­in a second, by the struc­tures of the face. What does a com­pet­ent face look like? It’s largely mas­cu­line, with a square jaw and large eyes. Baby-faced politi­cians, be wary. The video be­low takes a com­pet­ence-neut­ral face, morphs it in­to a very com­pet­ent face, and then to a very in­com­pet­ent-look­ing one.

What To­dorov’s re­search shows is that voters’ in­stant im­pres­sion of can­did­ates can per­sist in­to the polling booths. The res­ults of the study, he wrote, “have chal­len­ging im­plic­a­tions for the ra­tion­al­ity of vot­ing pref­er­ences, adding to oth­er find­ings that con­sequen­tial de­cisions can be more ‘shal­low’ than we would like to be­lieve.” 

What’s go­ing on here is simple: It’s ste­reo­typ­ing. Col­lect­ively, we have an un­der­stand­ing of what our lead­ers should look like. In turn, those ste­reo­types be­come real­ized when we vote. And our abil­ity to make snap judg­ments of politi­cians goes even deep­er than pick­ing win­ners and losers. At a sub­con­scious level, we even can spot a par­tis­an in a crowd.

“We have a lot of gut feel­ings, and my re­search in­terest is in un­der­stand­ing what those gut feel­ings are and where they come from,” says Nich­olas Rule, a psy­cho­lo­gist at the Uni­versity of Toronto. In 2009,he pub­lished an ex­per­i­ment that showed that gut feel­ings about an in­di­vidu­al’s polit­ics carry some truth. He showed study par­ti­cipants pic­tures of Sen­ate can­did­ates’ faces and asked them a simple ques­tion: Is this a Re­pub­lic­an or a Demo­crat?

To a de­gree great­er than chance, the par­ti­cipants guessed the right an­swer. When he had his par­ti­cipants rate the polit­ic­al lean­ings of their non­politi­cian peers, the ef­fect was even stronger. “There’s tons of er­ror,” Rule says. “We’re look­ing at 60 per­cent ac­cur­acy at best. The reas­on that is stat­ist­ic­ally sig­ni­fic­ant is be­cause it is so re­li­able.”

Rule says Re­pub­lic­an faces tend to look more dom­in­ant than Demo­crat­ic ones. “If we were to trans­late that in­to fea­tures, for ex­ample, it would be cues to dom­in­ance, which would be an­gu­lar­ity of fa­cial fea­tures, jaw size, the heav­i­ness of the brow ridge. Mas­culin­ity in a way.” On the oth­er hand, Demo­crats tend to have “warm­er” faces.

UCLA’s John­son did fur­ther re­search in­to fa­cial re­cog­ni­tion of party ID, in par­tic­u­lar wo­men in elec­ted of­fice. She asked par­ti­cipants to judge wheth­er the rep­res­ent­at­ives were Demo­crats or Re­pub­lic­ans, by face alone. (Her par­ti­cipants were col­lege stu­dents with a near-zero chance of re­cog­niz­ing the 434 House mem­bers of the 111th Con­gress.) Her find­ings rep­lic­ated Rule’s—the stu­dents matched politi­cians to party to a de­gree great­er than chance. The par­ti­cipants were 98 per­cent more likely to guess cor­rectly when the politi­cian was a highly fem­in­ine Re­pub­lic­an wo­man—that is, when the politi­cian fit a ste­reo­type.

Of course, choos­ing a can­did­ate is more com­plic­ated than just look­ing at a face. But both John­son and Rule say these ste­reo­types do play a role in elec­tions, es­pe­cially with cas­u­al voters. “Where we think this has the biggest im­pacts is on the mar­gins when people are not either well-in­formed or they’re not en­gaged in the polit­ic­al pro­cess,” John­son says.

The au­thors of the study of the Swiss chil­dren put it in stark­er terms: “Un­for­tu­nately, voters are anchored in first im­pres­sions and do not ap­pro­pri­ately cor­rect ini­tial in­fer­ences; ad­di­tion­al in­form­a­tion on the can­did­ates does not change choices by much.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.