What Science Says About “Sounding Presidential”

Lower-pitched voices fare better in elections.

Tess Watson / Flickr / Composite Image
Add to Briefcase
Brian Resnick
Sept. 16, 2015, 2:18 p.m.

In the an­im­al king­dom, in­di­vidu­als prove their dom­in­ance with dis­plays of power, stature, strength, and ag­gres­sion. We hu­mans like to think we’re more evolved than to look for those traits in a lead­er—that in­stead of physiolo­gic­al dom­in­ance, ideas and reas­on are what guide our de­cisions.

We like to think that, but “we are not so sep­ar­ate from the rest of the an­im­al king­dom as we might want to be­lieve,”  says Ca­sey Klof­stad, who stud­ies the in­ter­sec­tion of bio­logy and polit­ic­al sci­ence at the Uni­versity of Miami. “We are in­deed in­flu­enced—on some level—by subtle cues that are bio­lo­gic­ally de­term­ined.”

In par­tic­u­lar, Klof­stad stud­ies the way people re­act to polit­ic­al can­did­ates’ voices. He finds, con­sist­ently, that voters prefer politi­cians whose voices have a deep­er tone.

“Men with lower-pitched voices are per­ceived as stronger and more at­tract­ive,” he says. “For wo­men, it’s a little more com­plic­ated: Wo­men with lower-pitched voices are seen as more con­fid­ent and stronger. But wo­men with high­er voices are seen as more at­tract­ive.” For both males and fe­males, go­ing deep ap­pears to be a win­ning strategy.

Klof­stad demon­strated these find­ings in two re­cent pa­pers pub­lished in the journ­als Polit­ic­al Psy­cho­logy and PLOS ONE.

In the PLOS pa­per, he ma­nip­u­lated male and fe­male re­cord­ings of the sen­tence “I urge you to vote for me this Novem­ber” to range from a low bari­tone to a high sop­rano. Four hun­dred par­ti­cipants then took a listen to either the male or the fe­male voices, and were asked which voices they thought were stronger, more com­pet­ent, and older. They were also asked which voice they thought was more elect­able. The deep­er voices won. “The pref­er­ence for lead­ers with lower voices more likely re­flects [cor­rel­a­tions] between voice qual­ity and lead­er­ship cap­ab­il­ity that were rel­ev­ant at some earli­er time in hu­man evol­u­tion­ary or cul­tur­al his­tory,” the pa­per con­cludes.

In the Polit­ic­al Psy­cho­logy pa­per, Klof­stad wanted to see if any of these ef­fects play out in the real world. He took re­cord­ings of 796 can­did­ates in the 2012 House races and ana­lyzed the pitch of their voices. He then com­pared that data with elec­tion res­ults. The av­er­age voice pitch among win­ning male and fe­male can­did­ates was, over­all, lower than the losers, as you can see in the chart be­low.

Even con­trolling for oth­er factors that might ex­plain the out­come of the elec­tions—party af­fil­i­ation of the can­did­ate, dis­trict makeup, spend­ing, in­cum­bency—the dif­fer­ence voice pitch makes is still stat­ist­ic­ally sig­ni­fic­ant.

This pat­tern broke down when Klof­stad spe­cific­ally ana­lyzed data on races where males and fe­males were up against each oth­er. “When men and wo­men face each oth­er, men with lower voices were ac­tu­ally dis­ad­vant­aged,” Klof­stad says. It could be that men with deep voices may seem too ag­gress­ive next to a wo­man, but he has not tested that hy­po­thes­is in any ex­per­i­ment.

This re­search shouldn’t sug­gest that pun­dits should give up try­ing to call elec­tions based on demo­graph­ics, polling, and cam­paign is­sues. Those are more power­ful in­dic­at­ors of how people will vote than voice pitch. It’s just that “on top of that are these very thin sig­nals, these very thin, im­pres­sion­ist­ic judg­ments that we make,” Klof­stad says. “And we may or may not be aware of them.”

It’s not just voice. We, sub­lim­in­ally, prefer a whole host of phys­ic­al traits in our lead­ers. Those char­ac­ter­ist­ics in­clude:

A com­pet­ent face. A fam­ous 2005 study found that people can pre­dict the out­comes of elec­tions—to a de­gree great­er than just pure chance—by look­ing at can­did­ates’ faces. What was it about the faces? Faces that were deemed to be more “com­pet­ent” were more likely to win. A com­pet­ent face is the op­pos­ite of a baby face: square jaw, big eyes, fierce stare.

A tall frame. A 2012 ana­lys­is of all pres­id­en­tial elec­tions (ex­clud­ing those where the can­did­ates were the same height) found that “can­did­ates that were taller than their op­pon­ents re­ceived more pop­u­lar votes,” though they were not ne­ces­sar­ily more likely to win elec­tions. “Taller pres­id­ents were also more likely to be reelec­ted. In ad­di­tion, pres­id­ents were, on av­er­age, much taller than men from the same birth co­hort.”  

A happy face. “Just smil­ing in cam­paign pho­tos can sig­ni­fic­antly af­fect elec­tion out­comes,” a 2012 pa­per found in an ana­lys­is of 958 can­did­ates in Ja­pan­ese and Aus­trali­an elec­tions.

There’s no good reas­on why someone with a lower voice, or a taller frame, or a bet­ter smile would make a bet­ter can­did­ate. Lower voices may in­dic­ate high­er levels of testoster­one—and there­fore high­er levels of ag­gres­sion, and in­creased phys­ic­al­ity—but our demo­cracy needs sound thinkers, not brutes.

Hu­mans in the elec­tion booth aren’t the com­pletely ra­tion­al be­ings the philo­soph­ers of yore said we should as­pire to be. Keep that in mind while watch­ing the pres­id­en­tial primary sea­son un­fold. Why do we really like one can­did­ate over an­oth­er: Is it be­cause of their ideas, or be­cause of what our guts are telling us?


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.