Quick Navigation

Northern Illinois University

NIU Office of Public Affairs


News Release

Contact: Tom Parisi, NIU Office of Public Affairs
(815) 753-3635

February 4, 2004

At a glance, Clark and Edwards have an edge

DeKalb, Ill.--Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. John Edwards so far haven't captured the most votes in the Democratic primaries, but the two presidential hopefuls do hold a distinct advantage over their rivals in at least one area: the looks department.

Researchers James Schubert of Northern Illinois University and Margaret Curran of Richard Stockton College in New Jersey have compiled years of evidence establishing a link between candidates' physical appearances and their viability at the ballot box.

According to their most recent findings, Edwards rates as the most attractive candidate in the Democratic primary field. Voters link attractiveness to likeability, the researchers say.

Clark (note the high cheek bones) is a close second, but he also rates first among the candidates in the category of facial dominance, an important feature that voters associate with leadership abilities.

"Simply put, looks count," said Schubert, a veteran NIU professor of political science. "Facial characteristics and other non-verbal cues can and do subconsciously sway voters.

"We're not asserting that a candidate will win or lose based solely on his or her appearances," he said. "But appearance is a factor that comes into play, especially during crowded primaries, when issues are not yet well-defined. Good looks can help a candidate gain early media attention and raise money."

Added Curran, "Voters are influenced by appearances because they provide a way to sort through a list of candidates. A voter doesn't want to waste his or her vote on someone who doesn't appear to be electable."

To compile ratings on the Democratic presidential hopefuls, the researchers surveyed more than 80 male and female test subjects in November 2003, presenting them with still and video-clip images of the nine candidates in the race at the time. Largely unfamiliar with the candidates, the test subjects rated each image for such characteristics as attractiveness, dominance, electability, likeability, competence, compassion and leadership ability.

Sen. John Kerry--whose aides recently denied rumors that he was using Botox--wasn't rated near the top for facial dominance or attractiveness. But his string of early successes doesn't come as a complete surprise.

"Kerry has done better than we would have predicted, but he was among those we thought would be viable," Schubert said. "People are beginning to go beyond their initial response to appearances. They're getting to the issues."

Politicians can compensate for low scores in the looks department with non-verbal behavior, Schubert added. "The most important behavior for the candidates we've studied is whether they maintain eye contact with the camera," he said. "We interpret that as communicating confidence."

Back in November, former Vermont governor Howard Dean scored relatively high marks in the looks department, but now he must find ways to compensate for the "Dean scream" during his Iowa concession speech.

"The effect of the so-called scream plays right into our research," Curran said. "I think voters interpreted it as somebody who was just out of control. Humans have an immense capability for recognizing emotions based on facial appearance alone. You didn't need to have the sound up to see he was angry."

While test subjects deemed Edwards the most attractive candidate, he didn't do well in the facial dominance category. That may or may not be a drawback. "Certainly Edwards is more baby-faced than the other candidates, but that isn't always a bad thing," Curran said. "The baby-faced quality can be associated with compassion, and that softness can be appealing, particularly to women."

Since 1996, Schubert and Curran have been conducting research on the physical appearances of political candidates. In study after study, they demonstrated that symmetrical faces, prominent cheekbones, large jaw lines and pronounced brow ridges--the same dominant facial characteristics that influence mate selection--can help win over voters.

"The human brain has a sophisticated capacity for processing facial images and applying the information to social judgments," Schubert said.

Schubert noticed the connection between candidate looks and viability in 1996, while visiting Romania. He enlarged photographs of all 16 male presidential candidates and displayed the photos to a wide range of individuals. With a high degree of accuracy, test subjects were able to predict the top vote-getters, Schubert said.

In 1997, similar results were recorded when conducting formal experiments with NIU students, teens in Papua New Guinea and adults in Indonesia. Subjects were shown both still photographs and video clips of the 16 Romanian candidates. The six rated as most viable on the basis of the photographs received 91 percent of the popular vote in the first round of the actual election.

The branch of research that studies the link between appearances and voting behavior is known as evolutionary political psychology. In recent years, more researchers have been investigating the links.

"A lot more people are doing this type of research and recognizing that it does matter," Curran said. "Our research findings don't negate the issues in an election. We found that issues do matter, but sometimes voters won't get to the issues if they don't think the candidate is electable, based on appearance."

Schubert said he doesn't doubt that the day will come, if it hasn't already, when candidates will undergo makeovers, or perhaps even medical procedures, to enhance their looks.

"I think it's likely," he said. "Many of the candidates have already surrendered themselves to image consultants."

-30-