The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios

Abstract

Facial appearance of candidates has been linked to real election outcomes. Here we extend these findings by examining the contributions of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces to perceived votability. We first use real faces to show that attractiveness and trustworthiness are positively and independently related to perceptions of good leadership (rating study). We then show that computer graphic manipulations of attractiveness and trustworthiness influence choice of leader (experiments 1 and 2). Finally, we show that changing context from wartime to peacetime can affect which face receives the most votes. Attractive faces were relatively more valued for wartime and trustworthy faces relatively more valued for peacetime (experiments 1 and 2). This pattern suggests that attractiveness, which may indicate health and fitness, is perceived to be a useful attribute in wartime leaders, whereas trustworthiness, which may indicate prosocial traits, is perceived to be more important during peacetime. Our studies highlight the possible role of facial appearance in voting behaviour and the role of attributions of attractiveness and trust. We also show that there may be no general characteristics of faces that make them perceived as the best choice of leader; leaders may be chosen because of characteristics that are perceived as the best for leaders to possess in particular situations.

Does a competent leader make a good friend? Conflict, ideology and the psychologies of friendship and followership

“…Consistent with the existence of this trade-off, a range of studies have all found an enhanced preference for masculine and dominant-looking leaders and political candidates in times of threat from outgroups or war (Hall, Goren, Chaiken, & Todorov, 2009;Little, Burriss, Jones, & Roberts, 2007;Little, Roberts, Jones, & DeBruine 2012;Spisak, Dekker, Krüger, & van Vugt, 2012;Spisak, Homan, Grabo, & van Vugt, 2012). In such coalitional "games against people," collective action is vital.…”

Evolutionary preferences for physical formidability in leaders

“…Specifically, it asked subjects to indicate "How well does each word or phrase describe your preferred leader?" coded on a 7-point scale from "not well at all" (1) to "extremely well" (7). Ten characteristics were randomly presented: athletic, attractive, competent, dependable, dominant, friendly, intelligent, physically fit, physically imposing or intimidating, and physically strong.…”

Vote Choice, Ideology, and Social Dominance Orientation Influence Preferences for Lower Pitched Voices in Political Candidates

“…A masculine face is reliably associated with perceptions of being dominant and with actual aggressive and dominant behavior (Carré, McCormick, & Mondloch, 2009;Geniole, Keyes, Mondloch, Carré, & McCormick, 2012;Loehr & O'Hara, 2013;Stirrat & Perrett, 2010;Trebický, Havlícek, Roberts, Little, & Kleisner, 2013). Correspondingly, a series of studies have found that leaders with more masculine faces are preferred among subjects who are primed with war or between-group conflict scenarios, while subjects who are primed with peace or cooperation scenarios tend to prefer leaders with more feminine faces (Spisak, Dekker, et al, 2012a;Spisak, Homan, et al, 2012b;Laustsen & Petersen, 2015;Little, Burriss, Jones, & Roberts, 2007;Little, Roberts, Jones, & DeBruine, 2012;Re, DeBruine, Jones, & Perrett, 2013). Under conflict, individuals prefer a leader who can enforce collective action against the enemy.…”