ArticlePDF Available

You Can Leave Your Glasses on: Glasses Can Increase Electoral Success

January 2019
Social Psychology 50:38-52

DOI:10.1027/1864-9335/a000359

Authors:

Alexandra Fleischmann

Shop Apotheke Europe

Joris Lammers

University of Cologne

Janka I Stoker

University of Groningen

Harry Garretsen

University of Groningen

Does wearing glasses hurt or help politicians in elections? Although some research shows that glasses signal unattractiveness, glasses also increase perceptions of competence. In eight studies, participants voted for politicians wearing (photoshopped) glasses or not. Wearing glasses increased politicians’ electoral success in the U.S. (Study 1), independent of their political orientation (Studies 2a and 2b). This positive effect was especially strong when intelligence was important (Study 3), and even occurred if glasses were used strategically (Study 4). However, it did not extend to India (Study 5) due to different cultural associations with glasses (Study 6). Furthermore, while intelligence mediated the effect, warmth did not (Study 7). In summary, wearing glasses can robustly boost electoral success, at least in Western cultures.

Content uploaded by Alexandra Fleischmann

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Alexandra Fleischmann

Content may be subject to copyright.

Original Article

You Can Leave Your Glasses on

Glasses Can Increase Electoral Success

Alexandra Fleischmann

, Joris Lammers

, Janka I. Stoker

, and Harry Garretsen

Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne, Köln, Germany

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Abstract: Does wearing glasses hurt or help politicians in elections? Although some research shows that glasses signal unattractiveness,

glasses also increase perceptions of competence. In eight studies, participants voted for politicians wearing (photoshopped) glasses or not.

Wearing glasses increased politicians’electoral success in the US (Study 1), independent of their political orientation (Studies 2a and 2b). This

positive effect was especially strong when intelligence was important (Study 3), and even occurred if glasses were used strategically (Study 4).

However, it did not extend to India (Study 5) due to different cultural associations with glasses (Study 6). Furthermore, while intelligence

mediated the effect, warmth did not (Study 7). In summary, wearing glasses can robustly boost electoral success, at least in Western cultures.

Keywords: glasses, voting, stereotypes, politicians, election

Politicians appear to shun glasses. For example, even

though presently around 61% of US citizens wear glasses,

no US president since Harry Truman wore glasses in public

(Pindell, 2015). After becoming the UK Prime Minister,

David Cameron waited a full 3months before wearing

glasses in public and felt noticeably uncomfortable doing

so (Swinford, 2013). Jeb Bush even attributed his failure

to defeat Trump in the Republican primaries to his glasses

(Jamieson, 2016). It seems politicians try to avoid wearing

glasses in public because of possible associations with

vision deficiency, old age, and weakness (Elman, 1977;

Swinford, 2013; Terry & Krantz, 1993). But are politicians

actually right in doing so? The current research aims to test

this.

Effects of Glasses on Appearance

Politicians’appearance, in particular their facial appear-

ance, certainly influences their electoral success (Antonakis

&Dalgas,2009; Jäckle & Metz, 2015; Little, Burriss, Jones,

& Roberts, 2007; Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall,

2005; Todorov, Olivola, Dotsch, & Mende-Siedlecki,

2015). For example, Todorov et al. (2005) found that in

the US, 72% of the Senate races and 67%oftheHouse

races could be predicted by asking people who looked more

competent. Given that glasses may signal declining health

and weakness, politicians may be right to avoid wearing

glasses in public.

Indeed, some research appears to support politi-

cians’fears. Glasses are linked with a range of negative

characteristics, such as being less likeable, less attractive,

and most importantly less dominant (Edwards, 1987;

Hasart & Hutchinson, 1993; Leder, Forster, & Gerger,

2011; Lundberg & Sheehan, 1994; Terry & Krantz, 1993;

Terry & Kroger, 1976). For example, an early study by Terry

and Krantz (1993) found that wearing glasses reduced

social forcefulness, a characteristic including dominance,

aggressiveness, and courage. Leder et al. (2011) showed

that wearing glasses, especially full-rimmed ones, reduces

attractiveness.

Yet, in the current paper, we aim to show that wearing

glasses actually improves electoral success. Although peo-

ple have some negative associations, they also have many

positive associations with glasses –in particular with learn-

ing, studying, and wisdom (Harris, 1991; Hellström &

Tekle, 1994; Merry, 2012). This positive stereotype dates

back to the Middle Ages, when monks used glasses to study

despite declining vision. Glasses have since been commonly

worn by people who perform intellectual or other highly

skilled work (Ilardi, 2007). As a result, people associate

glasses with a variety of competence-related characteristics,

such as success, dependability, and industriousness, and

most strongly intelligence (Harris, 1991; Hellström & Tekle,

1994; Jäckle & Metz, 2015; Leder et al., 2011;Manz&

Lueck, 1968; Terry & Krantz, 1993; Thornton, 1943,1944).

Based on this notion, we propose that wearing glasses im-

proves electoral success due to the robust association

between perceptions of competence and electoral success

(Ballew & Todorov, 2007; Chiao, Bowman, & Gill, 2008;

Todorov et al., 2005). Competence often seems to be the

best facial predictor of participants’likelihood to vote for

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000359

${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000359 - Alexandra Fleischmann <alexandra.fleischmann@uni-koeln.de> - Monday, December 10, 2018 4:39:14 AM - Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln IP Address:134.95.104.210

acandidate(Jäckle&Metz,2015; Rosenberg & McCafferty,

1987; Sussman, Petkova, & Todorov, 2013; Todorov et al.,

2005; but see Praino, Stockemer, & Ratis, 2014; Verhulst,

Lodge, & Lavine, 2010, for a discussion of when and why

attractiveness might be more important). For example,

competence seems to be the best predictor for electoral

success in the previously mentioned US Senate and House

races, in the German parliament, and for Bulgarian presi-

dential candidates. In contrast, trust, likeability, attractive-

ness, and dominance do not predict electoral success as

strongly as competence (Jäckle & Metz, 2015; Sussman

et al., 2013; Todorov et al., 2005).

In summary, although earlier research suggests that

glasses may have negative effects, we propose that because

glasses clearly boost perceived competence, wearing

glasses increases politicians’electoral success. We test this

in eight studies using an experimental approach, in which

we use photoshopped images of actual politicians (see

Figure 1) to show participants the exact same politician –

but with or without glasses. This experimental approach is

particularly important because correlational findings from

local elections in Denmark show that wearing glasses is

related to reduced electoral success (Laustsen, 2014). How-

ever, the correlational nature of that study precludes causal

inferences. Furthermore, Laustsen found this effect after

controlling for differences in perceived competence between

candidates, with glasses being related to increased compe-

tence. This is problematic because we predict that glasses

increase electoral success exactly for this reason –by

increasing perceived competence.

Hypothesis 1(H1): Glasses increase electoral success.

Possible Moderators and Mediators

of the Glasses Effect

Next, we predict that the positive effect of wearing glasses

is moderated by a range of personal and situational factors.

Political Orientation

First, participants’or politicians’political orientation may

play a role. In general, Republicans prefer conservative-

looking politicians (Olivola, Sussman, Tsetsos, Kang, &

Todorov, 2012; Olivola, Tingley, & Todorov, 2018), mean-

ing politicians who look dominant (Laustsen & Petersen,

2015,2016). As glasses tend to reduce dominance (Terry

&Krantz,1993), liberal participants may show a stronger

and conservative participants a weaker glasses effect. Fur-

thermore, attractiveness is generally important for electoral

success (Berggren, Jordahl, & Poutvaara, 2010;Lutz,2010;

Praino et al., 2014; Rosar, Klein, & Beckers, 2008), but con-

servative politicians profit especially from it (Berggren,

Jordahl, & Poutvaara, 2017). As glasses also reduce attrac-

tiveness (Leder et al., 2011; Lundberg & Sheehan, 1994),

the positive effect of glasses may be stronger for liberal

politicians and weaker for conservative politicians. Then,

it is possible that the glasses effect would be stronger for

politicians of the same political orientation as the partici-

pants than for politicians from another party. Therefore,

we expect the glasses effect to be stronger for liberal partic-

ipants and for liberal politicians.

Hypothesis 2a(H2a): The positive effect of glasses is

stronger for liberal participants and liberal politicians

than for conservative participants and politicians.

Finally, because the effect of party affiliation already pre-

dicts electoral decisions strongly in cross-party elections

(Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960), it is possible

that the party affiliation of a politician overrides the glasses

effect for partisans.

Hypothesis 2b(H2b): Do glasses increase electoral

success in cross-party elections?

Political Situation

Next, the effect of glasses may depend on the traits

required by a specific political situation. Based on evolution-

ary psychology, human beings look for effective leadership

in order to be able to survive specific threats to their group

(Spisak, Nicholson, & van Vugt, 2011; van Vugt, Johnson,

Kaiser, & O’Gorman, 2008; van Vugt, 2006,2014). For

example, people prefer male presidential candidates, asso-

ciated with agentic skills, when there is a threat of interna-

tional conflict, have no preference in the absence of conflict

(Falk & Kenski, 2006), and even prefer female candidates

when the political situation demands a communal candi-

date to overcome internal divisions (Lammers, Gordijn, &

Figure 1. Example of actual stimuli pairs used in studies with

American participants. Included with the kind agreement of

Mrs. Agneta Gille (MP of Swedish Parliament for the Social Demo-

crats). These are the only stimuli for which we got the permission to

include them in print, but we are happy to share stimuli for research

purposes.

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

2 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

Otten, 2009). Similarly, people prefer masculine, strong,

and dominant leaders in times of conflict, and feminine,

intelligent, and cooperative leaders in times of peace

(Laustsen & Petersen, 2015,2017;Littleetal.,2007; Spisak,

Blaker, Lefevre, Moore, & Krebbers, 2014; Spisak, Dekker,

Krüger, & van Vugt, 2012; Spisak, Homan, Grabo, & van

Vugt, 2012; Spisak et al., 2011).

Based on these findings, we propose that the positive

effect of glasses differs with the characteristics needed in

the current political situation. Although glasses are associ-

ated with intelligence, they are also associated with reduced

perceptions of dominance (Elman, 1977; Leder et al., 2011;

Terry & Krantz, 1993). Therefore, we expect that glasses

have a positive effect in political situations that demand

intelligence, but do not have this effect if the political situ-

ation makes dominance a more valuable trait. We test this

hypothesis in Study 3.

Hypothesis 3(H3): The positive effect of glasses on

electoral success is stronger when the political situa-

tion calls for intelligent leaders than when it calls for

dominant leaders.

Strategic Use of Glasses

Next, we test whether the positive effect of glasses disap-

pears when voters are aware that politicians deliberately

use glasses to win votes. Trustworthiness and honesty are

important predictors of electoral success (Hetherington,

1998; Little, Roberts, Jones, & Debruine, 2012;McCurley

&Mondak,1995;Shephard&Johns,2008; Wojciszke &

Klusek, 1996). Using glasses merely to increase electoral

success may be seen as deceptive and thus activate the

common stereotype that politicians are dishonest (Blair,

2002; Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016).

In addition, people tend to control for stereotypes if they

are aware of their influence (Devine, 1989; Sczesny &

Kühnen, 2004;Wegner&Bargh,1998). If voters realize

that a politician only wears glasses to look more intelligent,

then they may avoid relying on that positive stereotype

(Kunda & Sinclair, 1999). In sum, voters’awareness of

the strategic use of glasses may block the positive effect

on electoral success. We test this idea in Study 4.

Hypothesis 4(H4): Glasses fail to increase electoral

success if voters are aware of their strategic use.

Cross-Cultural Differences

Next, we examine the potential moderating effect of cross-

cultural differences. Until now, the role of facial appearance

in electoral success has been mostly studied with Western

populations (Ballew & Todorov, 2007; Little et al., 2007;

Poutvaara, Jordahl, & Berggren, 2009; Sussman et al.,

2013; Todorov et al., 2005). No research has tested

whether the effect of glasses (e.g., on voting) generalizes

across cultures. One reason why the effect of glasses may

differ more across cultures than the general effect of facial

appearance is that the cultural stereotypes of glasses may

differ much more between cultures. Although in rich Wes-

tern countries a majority of adults wears glasses, this is

much less common in less wealthy countries where people

only wear glasses for very serious vision problems. For

example, while over 60% of US Americans wear glasses,

only 7% of Indians do so (Center for Disease Control and

Prevention, 2013; Karnani, Garrette, Kassalow, & Lee,

2010). Consequently, in India and other less wealthy coun-

tries, wearing glasses may be less strongly associated with

intelligence but more with vision deficiency and weakness

(Elman, 1977;Swinford,2013; Terry & Krantz, 1993).

Therefore, if an Indian politician wears glasses, this may

more easily be perceived as a sign of weakness, rather than

of competence, and thus not produce the same positive

effects as in the West. We test this in Study 5.

Hypothesis 5(H5): The positive effect of glasses on

electoral success is limited to Western countries like

the US and does not show in less wealthy countries

like India.

Mediation by Intelligence and Warmth

Finally, we aim to demonstrate the process underlying the

relation between glasses and electoral success. We predict

that the positive effect of glasses is driven by glasses mak-

ing candidates look more intelligent (Leder et al., 2011;

Terry & Krantz, 1993), and perceived intelligence increas-

ing electoral success (e.g., Little et al., 2012;Shephard&

Johns, 2008; Todorov et al., 2005). We test this prediction

in Study 6and Study 7, while also focusing on the hypoth-

esized difference between Americans and Indians in the

cultural association of glasses with intelligence in Study 6

(Hypothesis 5).

Hypothesis 6(H6): Americans associate glasses with

intelligence, whereas Indians do not. Therefore,

wearing glasses increases electoral success because

it increases perceived intelligence in the US, but in

India, it does not.

Another possible mediator could be warmth. Some research

finds that glasses increase facets of warmth such as honesty

and helpfulness (Hellström & Tekle, 1994; Thornton, 1943,

1944), while other research finds that it reduces likeability

(Jäckle & Metz, 2015; Leder et al., 2011). In turn, warmth is

–next to intelligence –an important predictor for electoral

success (Poutvaara et al., 2009; Rosenberg, Kahn, Tran, &

Le, 1991;Shephard&Johns,2008). If glasses lead to

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 3

increased warmth, warmth could also explain why glasses

lead to higher electoral success. We test this prediction in

Study 7.

Hypothesis 7(H7): Glasses lead to increased warmth,

so warmth explains electoral success for politicians

with glasses additionally to intelligence.

Overview of Studies

In summary, eight studies test how wearing glasses affects

electoral success. Study 1tests our main prediction that

politicians who wear glasses have a higher electoral suc-

cess. Studies 2aand2b look at the influence of political ori-

entation of participants and politicians. Study 3examines

the impact of political demands. Study 4examines the

effect of voters’awareness of politicians’strategic uses of

glasses. Study 5explores cross-cultural moderation by test-

ing whether the effect generalizes to India. Study 6explains

the underlying process by testing whether stereotypical

associations between glasses and intelligence mediate the

effect, and whether this is an explanation for the cross-cul-

tural differences tested in Study 5. Finally, Study 7tests

warmth as another potential mechanism for the glasses

effect.

Methodological Notes

Across these studies, participants were recruited on Ama-

zon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants on MTurk

are attentive to instructions and more representative of

the US population than many convenience samples.

Research using MTurk leads to similar results as nationally

representative samples (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012;

Hauser & Schwarz, 2015; Mullinix, Leeper, Druckman, &

Freese, 2016). To ensure high data quality, only MTurkers

with an approval rate of over 90% participated, and only in

one of these studies. Participants were compensated

according to the length of each study. All studies were con-

ducted using SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2015).

First, we developed one stimulus set for our studies with

American samples and one for our studies with Indian sam-

ples. Each stimulus set consisted of eight original pictures of

politicians and eight pictures photoshopped with glasses

(see Electronic Supplementary Material, ESM 1,formore

information on stimulus development). Few participants

overall were suspicious of the glasses, and suspicion did

not change results (see ESM 1). Throughout these studies,

we report how we set sample size. In some of these studies,

we accidentally collected more participants than planned,

as occurs often in online research. All participants who fin-

ished a study were included in the analyses. We did not

exclude any data, and we report all measures and manipu-

lations. We report all studies conducted as part of this

research project.

Data and analyses can be found at

https://osf.io/8867z.

Study 1: Glasses Increase Electoral

Success

Study 1tests whether wearing glasses increases politicians’

electoral success (Hypothesis 1).

Method

Participants

Two hundred three American MTurkers (75 women, 128

men, M

age

=36 years) participated. Sample size was set a

priori to 200, which gave us a power of .80 (Cohen,

1992) to detect a small effect of d=0.20 (Faul, Erdfelder,

Lang, & Buchner, 2007).

Procedure and Materials

Participants were shown 16 pairs of same-sex politicians in

a random order in a mock election paradigm (e.g., Lam-

mers et al., 2009; Todorov et al., 2005), and indicated

who they would vote for. Half of the pairs were critical tri-

als, consisting of one politician with and one politician with-

out glasses (see ESM 1for stimulus development). To avoid

that participants would guess the aim of the study, the

remaining half of the pairs were filler trials, consisting only

of original, unaltered pictures of politicians. These pic-

tures were also politicians from the pretest, but those that

were not chosen for our target stimuli. Participants always

only saw each politician once, either with or without

glasses. Politicians were identified simply with the letter A

or B.

Measures

To measure electoral success, participants indicated which

politician they would vote for, on a 7-point scale from 1=

definitely politician A to 7=definitely politician B. We also

measured demographics, including whether participants

Two additional studies are omitted from the paper given their conceptual and theoretical overlap with the reported studies. Study 1b (N= 200)

replicated the positive effect of glasses of Study 1, t(199) = 5.16, p< .001, but was otherwise uninteresting because it failed to show a

hypothesized moderation by dispositional differences. Study 4b (N= 202) only administered the wear glasses condition of Study 4. Consistent

with the Study 4, participants indicated that wearing glasses would improve election success, t(201) = 8.03, p< .001. Given that Study 4 provides

a more complete picture, we omit Study 4b. Both studies are in ESM 1.

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

4 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

wore glasses themselves, exploratory variables (see ESM 1),

and participants’suspicion of glasses (see ESM 1).

Results

Data and analyses for all studies can be found at https://

osf.io/8867z. We recoded all ratings so that higher values

indicated a preference for politicians with glasses and lower

values a preference for politicians without. In line with

Hypothesis 1,aone-samplet-test indicated that participants

preferred politicians with glasses over those without, t(202)

=4.16,p<.001,d=0.29,M=4.20,SD =0.69,CI

[0.15,

0.43]. For additional analyses with participants’or politi-

cians’characteristics, see ESM 1.

Discussion

Study 1provided first evidence for Hypothesis 1that wear-

ing glasses improves electoral success. In a mock election

paradigm, participants were more likely to vote for politi-

cians when these politicians wore glasses than when they

did not. Because we used exactly the same pictures of each

politician, only changing whether they wore glasses or not

(and counterbalanced between participants), we can rule

out that this effect was due to any confounds with the

stimuli.

Studies 2a and 2b: Political

Orientation

Study 2a tests whether the effect of wearing glasses

depends on the political orientation of participants or of

the politicians wearing glasses. The preregistration for this

study can be found at https://aspredicted.org/5e44q.pdf.

Study 2b tests whether glasses have a positive effect for par-

tisans in cross-party elections. The preregistration can be

found at https://aspredicted.org/xg4cz.pdf.

Method

Participants and Design

In Study 2a, 200 American MTurkers (80 women, 118 men,

2other, M

age

=34) participated. The design was a 2(polit-

ical orientation of politician: Democrat vs. Republican)

within-subjects design. As in Study 1, sample size was set

to 200 to obtain 80% power for a small effect of d=

0.20.InStudy2b, 351 American MTurkers (159 women,

192 men, M

age

=38) participated. The design was a 2(polit-

ical orientation of politician with glasses: own vs. other

party) within-subjects design. Based on a small effect size

of d=0.20 and 90% power, indicating a sample size of

265, and to account for some analyses only with partisans,

we set sample size to 350.

Procedure and Materials

We used the same procedure as in Study 1.InStudy2a, par-

ticipants were told that the first eight pairs of politicians

were Democrats and the second eight pairs were Republi-

cans, or vice versa. Additionally, we asked participants

two questions about glasses and fashion (see ESM 1). In

Study 2b, politicians in the filler trials were always from

the same party, and politicians in the critical trials were

always a Republican running against a Democrat. Addition-

ally, politicians had random names and appropriate ages

(see ESM 1).

Results

Study 2a

As expected, participants were more likely to vote for the

politician with glasses than for the politician without,

t(199)=4.15,p<.001,d=0.30,M=4.20,SD =0.67,

[0.15,0.43]. In line with Hypothesis 2a, the more

the participants identified as liberal, the more they showed

the glasses effect, r(198)=.208,p=.003,CI

[0.071,

0.337]. However, contrary to Hypothesis 2a, this was the

case regardless of whether the politician was described

as Democrat or Republican, t(199)=0.09,p=.929,d=

0.01,M

diff

=0.01,CI

[0.13,0.15]. Then, we tested

whether participants showed a stronger glasses effect for

their own party. In this analysis, we only included partici-

pants who were identified as either Democrats or Republi-

can. Again, liberals showed a stronger glasses effect than

conservatives, F(1,151)=7.52,p=.007,η

=.05,CI

[.01,.11], while the effect did not differ by politicians’polit-

ical orientation, F(1,151)=0.07,p=.790,η

<.01,CI

[0.00,0.02], or the interaction between the two, F(1,151)

=0.29,p=.594,η

<.01,CI

[0.00,0.03]. For effects

of fashion, see ESM 1.

Study 2b

With regard to Hypothesis 2b, participants were more likely

to vote for the politician with glasses even in cross-party

elections, t(350)=3.58,p<.001,d=0.19,M=4.11,SD

=0.60,CI

[0.85,0.30]. Only including partisans, partic-

ipants strongly voted for politicians from their own party,

t(254)=12.65,p<.001,d=0.79,M=4.98,SD =1.24,

[0.65,0.93]. However, they were less likely to do so

when the politician from the other party was wearing

glasses (M=4.88,SD =1.49)thanwhenthepoliticianfrom

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 5

their own party was wearing glasses (M=5.09,SD =1.24), t

(254)=2.83,p=.005,d=0.18,M=0.21,SD =1.19,CI

[0.05,0.31].

Discussion

Studies 2aand2b replicate the basic finding of glasses lead-

ing to better electoral success. As expected in Hypothesis

2a, this effect is stronger the more liberal participants are.

Interestingly, the same is not true for the politicians’polit-

ical orientation: No matter whether a politician was pre-

sented as Republican or Democrat, participants preferred

politicians with glasses. Additionally, glasses increased elec-

toral success for politicians with the same or a different

political orientation, and they also increased electoral suc-

cess in cross-party elections. Glasses therefore seem to

have a positive effect across the political spectrum of

politicians.

Study 3: Political Demands

Study 3tests whether the effect of wearing glasses depends

on situational political demands, specifically on whether

intelligence or dominance is desirable.

Method

Participants and Design

Two hundred American MTurkers (85 women, 115 men,

age

=32) participated. Participants were randomly

assigned to one of two between-participant conditions

(peace vs. war). Expecting the same effect as in Study 1,

we calculated sample size a priori with G*Power (Faul

et al., 2007) to obtain a power of .80. We rounded the rec-

ommended sample size (192)uptoatargetN=200.

Procedure and Material

WeusedthesameprocedureasinStudy1, except for the

addition of the political demands manipulation. Participants

first learned about the most important problem facing the

country, either complex legislative problems (peace condi-

tion), or an attack from a neighboring country (war condi-

tion). In the former condition, the country needed a

president who could deliberate on the problem, in the lat-

ter, a president who could act fast.

Measures

In addition to the measures from Study 1, participants indi-

cated what the most important problem of the country was

as an attention check (see ESM 1for details). They also

stated what they searched for in a politician and filled out

exploratory variables (see ESM 1).

Results

Eighty-seven percent of participants correctly identified the

problem in the country before the vote. Participants in the

peace condition also searched more for a politician who

could deliberate well, rather than act fast, compared to par-

ticipants in the war condition (see ESM 1for analyses).

In support of Hypothesis 3,wefoundthatparticipants’

electoral decisions differed by experimental condition,

t(198)=2.10,p=.037,d=0.30,CI

[0.02,0.58]. In the

peace condition (n=96), participants preferred the politi-

cians with glasses over politicians without glasses, t(95)=

2.49,p=.015,d=0.25,M=4.20,SD =0.78,CI

[0.05,

0.46]. In the war condition (n=104), participants had an

equal preference for leaders with and without glasses,

t(103)=0.43,p=.670,d=0.04,M=3.97,SD =0.78,

[0.23,0.15].

Discussion

In the peace condition, Study 3replicated the finding from

Studies 1and 2that glasses increase electoral success. As

predicted by Hypothesis 3,Study3also showed that this

positive effect only occurs in the political situation that asks

for intelligence in a leader, but not if the country is threat-

ened by an armed conflict (stereotypically requiring domi-

nance instead). Nonetheless, it is important to note

that even if participants believed the country to be threat-

ened by war, wearing glasses did not produce a negative

effect.

Study 4: Strategic Use

Study 4investigated whether the effect of glasses is under-

mined if participants are aware that glasses are used delib-

erately to improve electoral results (Hypothesis 4).

Method

Participants and Design

Two hundred one American MTurkers (77 women, 124

men, M

age

=34) participated. Participants were randomly

assigned to one of two conditions (wear glasses vs. remove

glasses). Based on the calculations in Study 3,samplesize

was set to 200 apriori.

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

6 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

Material and Procedure

In the wear glasses condition, participants were shown one

random unaltered picture of a politician (from the Ameri-

can stimulus set). They were told that the politician was

running for office but was not doing so well. Therefore,

one advisor proposed that the politician should wear

glasses. Then, participants were also shown the altered pic-

ture of the same politician. In the remove glasses condition,

participants instead saw one of the photoshopped pictures

of the politician with glasses. They were told the same

story, but the advisor instead proposed to remove the

glasses. Then, they also saw the original picture of the

politician without glasses.

Measures

To measure overall success of the candidate, participants

indicated how likely they and how likely others would vote

for the candidate, both between 1=less likely and 7=more

likely, and how wearing/removing glasses would change the

politician’s election results, between 1=definitely hurt and

7=definitely help. These three questions were averaged

(wear glasses condition: Cronbach’sα=.90,remove

glasses condition: Cronbach’sα=.79). For exploratory pur-

poses, participants also indicated on two separate items

whether glasses would help or hurt if the politician was run-

ningfortheRepublicanPartyorifthepoliticianwasrun-

ning for the Democratic Party, both between 1=definitely

hurt and 7=definitely help. We did not ask for suspicion

in this study because we openly showed both the pictures

with and without glasses.

Results

We recoded votes so that in both conditions, higher num-

bers indicated that participants preferred the politician to

wear glasses (either keep wearing their glasses or start

wearing them). Reactions to the politician differed by

advice given, t(199)=2.81,p=.005,d=0.40,CI

[0.12,

0.68]. Contrary to Hypothesis 4, for the wear glasses con-

dition (n=101), participants preferred the politicians to

wear glasses, t(100)=3.74,p<.001,d=0.37,M=4.34,

SD =0.91,CI

[0.17,0.57]. For the remove glasses condi-

tion (n=100), participants did not have a preference for

the politicians to either keep or remove the glasses, t(99)

=0.32,p=.753,d=0.03,M=3.97,SD =0.95,CI

[0.16,0.23]. This finding suggests that participants

believe that adopting glasses can help a politician, while

removing them does not, because they thought both they

themselves and others would be more likely to vote for a

politician with glasses. For additional analyses with partici-

pants’demographics and politicians’political orientation,

see ESM 1.

Discussion

Study 4failed to find support for Hypothesis 4.Weagain

found a positive impact of glasses on electoral success, even

when we directly told participants of the strategic use of

glasses for the purpose of winning an election. Even though

participants were aware of the impression management,

they indicated that they and others would be more likely

to vote for the politician with glasses. In contrast to that,

removing glasses for strategic reasons did not lead to a pos-

itive effect, ruling out that participants were merely going

along with any strategy an advisor proposed. All in all, these

results show that voters’awareness that a politician wears

glasses for strategic impression management goals does

not seem to lead to any negative effects.

Study 5: Glasses in India

Our first four studies focused on American samples. To test

for cultural differences, Study 5tests whether the effect

generalizes to a non-Western setting. As stated in Hypoth-

esis 5, we expected the effect to be limited to the US and

not shown in India.

Method

Participants

Two hundred three Indian MTurkers (74 women, 129 men,

age

=33 years) participated. Sample size was set a priori at

200 to obtain a power of .80 (Cohen, 1992)todetecta

small effect of d=0.20 (Faul et al., 2007).

Procedure and Material

The procedure closely followed that of Study 1. Participants

were shown eight pairs of same-sex Indian politicians of

similar baseline popularity, in random order. The four crit-

ical trials featured a politician with and one without glasses.

Then, participants stated for whom they would vote, on a 7-

point scale from 1=definitely politician A to 7=definitely

politician B. After that, participants answered demographic

questions, whether they wore glasses themselves and

whether they found anything suspicious.

Results

Participants’responses again were recoded so that higher

values indicated a preference for politicians with glasses.

In line with Hypothesis 5and consistent with the idea that

wearing glasses may even be seen as a sign of weakness,

Indians marginally preferred politicians without glasses,

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 7

t(202)=1.94,p=.054,d=0.14,M=3.84,SD =1.20,CI

[0.27,0.002]. See ESM 1for analyses with participants’

demographics.

Discussion

Consistent with our reasoning for Hypothesis 5, the positive

effect of glasses did not replicate in India. In fact, if any-

thing, glasses led to marginally lower electoral success. As

we described, glasses are rare in India (only 7% wear them)

and are typically worn out of dire medical needs. Therefore,

Indians may not associate glasses with intelligence as much

as Americans do.

Another possibility may be that Indians value different

characteristics in politicians. For example, Rule et al.

(2010) showed that dominance predicts electoral success

in the US and warmth does not, but the opposite is true

for Japan. Therefore, we directly compared ratings of intel-

ligence for politicians with glasses and their predictive

power for electoral success in India and the US in Study 6.

Study 6: Intelligence as Mediator

Study 6replicated the finding of Study 5and directly com-

pared an Indian sample and an American sample in one

study. It also tested whether the unequal glasses effect in

India and America is due to different associations of glasses

with intelligence (Hypothesis 6). As an alternative explana-

tion, it examined whether people in the US and India value

intelligence differently.

Method

Participants

Four hundred seven participants were recruited on MTurk.

We targeted our sample so that we obtained an equal num-

ber of Indians (N

India

=206;76 women, 130 men; M

age

=32

years) and Americans (N

America

=201;80 women, 120 men,

1other; M

age

=33 years). We set sample size a priori at 200

per sample so that again we would be able to detect a small

effect of d=.20 in each sample.

Procedure and Material

Participants were shown a pair of same-sex politicians of

similar baseline popularity from the respective stimulus

set. Participants indicated their associations of intelligence

for the two candidates, judging who was more intelligent,

more rational, and more intellectual (Terry & Krantz,

1993), between 1=definitely politician A and 7=definitely

politician B, Cronbach’sα=.77, and rated exploratory vari-

ables (see ESM 1). As in previous studies, all ratings were

recoded so that higher ratings indicated that the politician

with glasses was considered to be more intelligent. Next,

we used the same measure of electoral success as in previ-

ous studies. After that, participants provided demographics.

Given that measures of suspicion did not moderate any of

the previous results, we did not measure suspicion.

Results

We first discuss the influence of glasses on electoral success

and intelligence in both India and the US. Then, we test

whether the difference in electoral success is mediated by

differences in intelligence ratings.

Election Results

Supporting Hypothesis 5, Indians and Americans differed in

their preference for politicians with glasses, t(358)=2.43,

=.016,d=0.24,CI

[0.05,0.44]. Replicating the results

of Studies 1–4, Americans (n=201) preferred politicians

with glasses over those without glasses, t(200)=3.69,p<

.001,d=0.26,M=4.41,SD =1.57,CI

[0.12,0.40]. Con-

sistent with Hypothesis 5, Indians (n=206)againdidnot

share this preference, t(205)=0.44,p=.657,d=0.03,

M=3.93,SD =2.35,CI

[0.17,0.11], although we did

not find the marginally significant reversal we found in

Study 5.

Intelligence

In support of Hypothesis 6, Indians and Americans differed

in their associations between glasses and intelligence, t

(388)=4.12 (see Footnote 2), p<.001,d=.41,CI

[0.21,0.60]. While Americans rated politicians with glasses

as more intelligent than politicians without, t(200)=6.95,p

<.001,d=0.49,M=4.59,SD =1.20,CI

[0.34,0.64],

Indians did not, t(205)=0.28,p=.784,d=0.02,M=

4.03,SD =1.52,CI

[0.12,0.16].

Mediation

To test whether intelligence ratings explained the differ-

ence in electoral success between countries (Hypothesis

6), we tested for mediation with the Process macro (Hayes,

2013,10,000 bootstrapping resamples). The full mediation

modelcanbefoundinFigure2. Mirroring the previous

analyses, participants’country predicted electoral success

for politicians with glasses compared to politicians without,

b=0.481,SE =0.199,p=.016,CI

[0.871,0.090],

showing that Americans were more likely to vote for politi-

cians with glasses than Indians. Similarly, participants’

Corrected for variance heterogeneity.

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

8 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

country predicted intelligence ratings of politicians with

glasses compared to politicians without, b=0.558,SE =

0.136,p<.001,CI

[0.825,0.291], as Americans found

politicians with glasses compared to those without more

intelligent than did Indians. When both country and intelli-

gence ratings were used to predict electoral success, intelli-

gence ratings predicted electoral success, b=0.957,SE =

0.055,p<.001,CI

[0.849,1.065], but country did not,

b=0.053,SE =0.154,p=.730,CI

[0.249,0.355].

Therefore,thedataisinlinewithHypothesis6: The differ-

ent electoral preferences of Indians and US Americans for

politicians with glasses can be explained through their dif-

ferent intelligence ratings for politicians with glasses, indi-

rect effect ab =0.534,SE =0.134,CI

[0.804,

0.272]. For additional analyses on how Indians and Amer-

icans value intelligence in a candidate, see ESM 1.

Discussion

The current results replicate and integrate the findings of

Studies 1–5, by showing that although wearing glasses pro-

duces a positive effect on political candidates’electoral suc-

cess in the US, this is not the case for political candidates in

India. Furthermore, these results show that this is due to a

difference in the stereotype of glasses. Where Americans

strongly associate glasses with intelligence, Indians do not.

Study 7 –Intelligence and Warmth

as Mediators

Study 7was used to replicate the effect that glasses make

politicians look more intelligent in the US and therefore

lead to higher electoral success. More importantly, it tested

whether glasses make politicians look warmer in the US as

another explaining mechanism.

Method

The preregistration for this study can be found at https://

aspredicted.org/t6d5v.pdf.

Participants

Two hundred and one American MTurkers participated (84

women, 116 men, M

age

=36). Sample size was set to 200 to

obtain 80% power for a small effect of d=.20.

Procedure and Materials

Procedure and materials were very similar to Study 6for

the American MTurkers. The only difference was that

instead of dominance, we measured warmth. To measure

warmth, participants answered which of the two politicians

was more compassionate, friendly, and honest (Terry &

Krantz, 1993), on a 7-point Likert scale between 1=defi-

nitely politician A and 7=definitely politician B,Cronbach’s

α=.80. Again, we did not measure suspicion due to absent

effects of suspicion in the previous studies.

Results

Replicating previous studies, participants marginally pre-

ferred politicians with glasses, t(200)=1.93,p=.055,d=

0.14,M=4.22,SD =1.61,CI

[0.003,0.27], and per-

ceived them as more intelligent, t(200)=6.25,p<.001,

d=0.44,M=4.52,SD =1.18,CI

[0.30,0.59]. However,

they did not perceive politicians with glasses to be warmer

than politicians without, t(200)=0.06,p=.956,d<0.01,

M=4.00,SD =1.28,CI

[0.14,0.13]. Even though

warmth did not differ for politicians with and without

glasses, both warmth of a politician, b=0.558,SE =

0.064,p<.001,CI

[0.432,0.684], and intelligence of

a politician, b=0.621,SE =0.070,p<.001,CI

[0.483,

0.759], predicted electoral success.

Discussion

Study 7replicates the effect of glasses on perceived intelli-

gence. Contrary to Hypothesis 7, we find no effect of

glasses on perceived warmth. This is in line with the mixed

effects found by previous research, finding glasses to be

related to both increased and decreased warmth (Hellström

&Tekle,1994; Jäckle & Metz, 2015; Leder et al., 2011;

Thornton, 1943,1944).Whilebothintelligenceandwarmth

predict electoral success quite well, the missing influence of

glasses on perceived warmth indicates that intelligence is

responsible for the electoral success of politicians with

glasses, while warmth is not.

Meta-Analysis

To precisely estimate the glasses effect, we conducted a

meta-analysis for our US and Indian samples (see ESM 1

for inclusion of studies). Using R (R Core Team, 2017),

Figure 2. Mediation model for Study 6. Country of participants

predicts intelligence ratings of politicians with glasses, which predicts

electing politicians with glasses. *p< .05; ***p< .001.

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 9

we computed effect sizes and standard errors with BootES

(Kirby & Gerlanc, 2013) and then computed a random-

effects meta-analysis with metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010).

Consistent with the studies reported above, for the US sam-

ple, we found a clear effect of glasses, d=0.25,SE =0.03,

p<.001,CI

[0.19,0.31]. In contrast, for the Indian sam-

ple, there was no positive effect of glasses, d=0.08,SE =

0.05,p=.115,CI

[0.19,0.02]. Most importantly, coun-

try moderated the glasses effect, b=0.336,SE =0.064,

p<.001,CI

[0.462,0.211]. Therefore, glasses

increased electoral success in the US, but not in India.

General Discussion

While politicians often believe that glasses can hurt their

electoral success, we show in eight experiments that glasses

actually increase electoral success. In Study 1(basic para-

digm), participants in mock elections voted for politicians

without glasses or with photoshopped glasses. We found

that participants clearly preferred candidates with glasses.

The positive effect of glasses was particularly strong for lib-

eral participants (Study 2a) –but also occurred in cross-

party elections (Study 2b) –and when intelligent politicians

were needed (Study 3). Furthermore, against our prediction,

the positive effect of glasses held even for the strategic use

of glasses (Study 4). Cross-culturally, the positive effect of

glasses observed in the US did not extend to India, because

people in India do not share Americans’stereotype to asso-

ciate glasses with intelligence (Studies 5and 6). Finally,

while glasses seem to increase perceptions of intelligence,

which lead to higher electoral success, perceptions of

warmth remain unchanged by glasses (Study 7).

The fact that people preferred candidates with glasses

even when these glasses were worn strategically (Study 4)

is surprising, given that people usually control for their

stereotypes when they are aware of them. A strategic use

of glasses should rather activate the stereotype of a dishon-

est politician (Devine, 1989;Kunda&Sinclair,1999). Pos-

sibly, voters know that in the US, presidential candidates

spend millions of dollars and employ hundreds of staff

members to find the best way to improve their self-presen-

tation (Gilens, 2012; Morton & Cameron, 1992; Stratmann,

2005). In that light, a small amount spent on glasses seems

trivial and may not lead to such strong reactions. Future

research may seek to test this further.

Limitations and Strengths

One limitation of our work is that participants were not

offered any substantive information about the candidates

and did not have any reason to assume that their decision

would influence their lives. In real elections, voters have

more access to substantive information (political programs)

and may be more motivated to process these. By only offer-

ing peripheral cues, our design may have favored peripheral

over central processing (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo,

1986; Thompson, Roman, Moskowitz, Chaiken, & Bargh,

1994) and increased the effect. At the same time, consider-

able political scientific literature argues that many real-life

political decisions, including elections, are characterized

by strong peripheral processing (Lupia, 1994; Popkin,

1991). Furthermore, peripheral cues may have an even

stronger impact when people have other information to

attribute their decision to (Yzerbyt, Schadron, Leyens, &

Rocher, 1994). Finally, while cues like party affiliation or

policy beliefs likely play a stronger role than glasses, glasses

are –in contrast to these other factors –easily changeable.

Another limitation concerns our participants and stimuli.

While MTurkers are more representative of the US popula-

tion than convenience samples, they are still somewhat

more liberal than a representative sample (Berinsky et al.,

2012). Previous research has shown that conservatives

value facial dominance more than liberals (Laustsen &

Petersen, 2015,2016). We also found that liberal partici-

pants showed a stronger effect of glasses in Study 1(see

ESM 1) and tested this in Study 2a. Therefore, it is possible

that very conservative voters would not show a glasses

effect, as they value dominance more in their decision.

Similar arguments can be made for the used glasses and

stimuli. We chose contemporary glasses, which may be bet-

ter in conveying intelligence than old-fashioned glasses,

which perhaps only convey reduced dominance and

decreased health. Additionally, some glasses might convey

warmth while others do not, which would explain inconsis-

tent findings in previous research on the relationship of

glasses and warmth. In this case, warmth might additionally

mediate the effect of glasses on electoral success, leading to

a stronger effect. Pending future research, we assume that

most glasses that are relatively neutral in color and shape

are associated with intelligence, so that the effect of glasses

should be positive. Similarly, we chose politicians that

already looked likeable and trustworthy. For sinister-look-

ing politicians or politicians with known negative character-

istics, glasses might hurt, as competence is only seen as

positive if it is coupled with morality (Landy, Piazza, &

Goodwin, 2016). It is likely that people are more afraid of

competent evil than incompetent evil.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings can only partly be explained by an evolution-

ary psychological view on leadership selection. From a

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

10 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

strong evolutionary standpoint, health and attractiveness

should be preferred in leaders in all situations (Spisak

et al., 2014), and they should be signaled by unchangeable

biological factors such as a person’s height or their face’s

width-to-height ratio (Poutvaara, 2014;Spisaketal.,2011;

van Vugt et al., 2008). If glasses signal anything, it should

be weakness and bad health, leading to less leadership

potential regardless of culture. In contrast to that, our

results indicate that glasses positively influence the percep-

tion of leaders in some countries, depending on the associ-

ated stereotypes. This is in line with a moderate perspective

that assumes that people use facial information to detect

desirable traits depending on the situation (Oosterhof &

Todorov, 2008;Spisaketal.,2014), as leadership emerged

as an adaptive strategy to solve important problems faced

by the group (Spisak et al., 2011;vanVugt,2006; van Vugt

&Ronay,2013). Accordingly, we find that wearing glasses

increases electoral success when situational demands lead

people to look for intelligent leaders, and only in countries

where glasses are considered to be a reliable signal for

intelligence.

Another important theoretical implication concerns the

cross-cultural differences we tested, as previous cross-cul-

tural research on facial appearance shows mixed results.

On the one hand, Americans’and Indians’ratings of politi-

cians’competence predicted Mexican and Brazilian elec-

tion outcomes (Lawson, Lenz, Baker, & Myers, 2010). On

the other hand, Americans’and Japanese’sratingsofdom-

inance only predicted election results in the US, while their

ratings of warmth only predicted election results in Japan.

Additionally, explicit ratings of electoral success were only

predictive within country (Rule et al., 2010). Even though

both links in our mediation model are well established,

we show that our findings only apply to the US (and, tenta-

tively, to Western cultures where glasses are common) and

find that the effects of glasses on elections do not general-

ize to India (or, tentatively, to Eastern cultures, if glasses

are less common). Furthermore, this difference seems to

be due to factors that are quite susceptible to cultural influ-

ences (stereotypes of glasses, see, e.g., Cuddy et al., 2009,

for cultural differences in stereotype content), while the

basic mechanism of electing competent-looking politicians

does not seem to differ.

Practical Implications

We believe that our findings also have important practical

implications. Politicians with competent faces seem to

enjoy better electoral success than their less competent-

looking colleagues. Although that finding has important

theoretical implications, the applied, practical implications

for politicians are limited. First, it is unclear what facial fea-

turesactuallycontributetothiseffect,asmoststudies

looked at how general impressions predict votes (Atkinson,

Enos, & Hill, 2009; Ballew & Todorov, 2007; Chiao et al.,

2008; Poutvaara et al., 2009; Shephard & Johns, 2008;

Todorov et al., 2005). More importantly, in those few cases

when specific features were examined, these features were

mostly unchangeable, such as the shape of politicians’faces

or eyes (Rosenberg et al., 1991; Zebrowitz & Montepare,

2005). In contrast, we focused on an easily changeable fea-

ture –glasses –that politicians can change to their advan-

tage by simply making a purchase!

Our results suggest that wearing glasses does not harm

politicians as many appear to think, but instead seems to

offer politicians an advantage over their competitors (at

least in Western cultures) without any real drawbacks. Even

though we found that the positive effect of glasses was

moderated by a number of factors, it did not reverse in

any of these cases. For example, Study 2bshowedthat

glasses had the same positive effect in cross-party elections.

Although Study 3showed that glasses do not have a positive

effect when a country is threatened by conflict (suggesting

the need for dominance over intelligence), glasses also did

not have a negative effect even then. Additionally, Study 4

showed that voters’awareness of self-presentation inten-

tions behind wearing glasses does not undermine the posi-

tive effects of wearing glasses.

Although the glasses manipulation produced small

effects across studies, such small effects could nonetheless

make a difference, in particular in a plurality or first-past-

the-post system, such as in the US, Canada, or Great Bri-

tain. In these elections, political candidates gain little

beyond getting the smallest majority possible (50.1%of

the vote), and thus, such elections are often decided by rel-

atively narrow margins (Downs, 1957). A small effect could

make a difference between winning and losing a battle-

ground state and thus provide a candidate with an edge

over their opponent. However, we note that election suc-

cess depends not only on the decisions of the voters, but

alsoonthedecisiontovoteatall.Aswehavenottested

the effect of glasses on voter turnout, we cannot say

whether glasses would also help to mobilize voters to vote.

Conclusion

Facial features are consistently found to be important pre-

dictors of electoral success (Ballew & Todorov, 2007;

Todorov et al., 2005). Yet existing research has limited

itself to mostly testing fixed, unchangeable features of

faces. We focus on changeable features and show that

wearing glasses reliably boosts electoral success. Glasses

offer an easy, effective, and robust way for politicians to

change their facial features and increase the probability of

electoral success in the West (as long as competence

is important). In fact, politicians may even use glasses

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 11

strategically, as voters are still more likely to vote for them

when this strategic use is known. The positive effect of

glasses may not generalize beyond Western settings such

as India though. Overall, our research suggests that not only

unchangeable, but also alterable facial features play an

important role in impression formation and electoral

success.

Open Data/Materials

Data and analyses can be found at https://osf.io/8867z.

Electronic Supplementary Materials

The electronic supplementary material is available with the

online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1027/

1864-9335/a000359

ESM 1.Analyses (.pdf)

Stimulus development, Studies 1band4b, and additional

analyses.

References

Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s

play! Science, 323, 1183–1183. https://doi.org/10.1126/

science.1167748

Atkinson, M. D., Enos, R. D., & Hill, S. J. (2009). Candidate faces

and election outcomes: Is the face-vote correlation caused by

candidate selection? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4,

229–249. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.0000806

Ballew, C. C., & Todorov, A. (2007). Predicting political elections

from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17948–17953. https://doi.

org/10.1073/pnas.0705435104

Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). The looks of a

winner: beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public

Economics, 94,8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.

11.002

Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2017). The right look:

Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it.

Journal of Public Economics, 146,79–86. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.008

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online

labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s

Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.

org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and

prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242–

261. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0603_8

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960).

The American voter. New York, NY: Wiley.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). 2013 national

health interview survey functioning and disability file [Data file

and SPSS code]. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

nhis/funcdisb2013.htm

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information

processing and the use of source versus message cues in

persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,

752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

Chiao, J. Y., Bowman, N. E., & Gill, H. (2008). The political gender

gap: Gender bias in facial inferences that predict voting

behavior. PLoS One, 3, e3666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0003666

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–

159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S.,

Leyens, J.-P., ... Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model

across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some

differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48,1–33.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X314935

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic

and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 56,5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.

56.1.5

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY:

Harper.

Edwards, K. (1987). Effects of sex and glasses on attitudes toward

intelligence and attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 60, 590–

590. https://doi.org/10.1177/003329418706000201

Elman, D. (1977). Physical characteristics and the perception of

masculine traits. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 157–

158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9713308

Falk, E., & Kenski, K. (2006). Issue saliency and gender stereo-

types: Support for women as presidents in times of war and

terrorism. Social Science Quarterly, 87,1–18. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.0038-4941.2006.00365.x

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power

3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,

behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Meth-

ods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality

and political power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Harris, M. B. (1991). Sex differences in stereotypes of spectacles.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1659–1680. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00497.x

Hasart, J. K., & Hutchinson, K. L. (1993). The effects of eyeglasses

on perceptions of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social

Behavior & Personality, 8, 521–528.

Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Attentive Turkers: MTurk

participants perform better on online attention checks than do

subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48,

400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and

conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hellström, Å., & Tekle, J. (1994). Person perception through facial

photographs: Effects of glasses, hair, and beard on judgments

of occupation and personal qualities. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 24, 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.

2420240606

Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political

trust. The American Political Science Review, 92, 791–808.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2586304

Ilardi, V. (2007). Renaissance vision from spectacles to telescopes.

Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.

Jäckle, S., & Metz, T. (2015). Attractiveness, competence or

likability? Appearance effects in the 2013 German election.

Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Montreal,

Canada.

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

12 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

Jamieson, A. (2016). Jeb Bush’s glasses conundrum: Some

unsolicited fashion advice. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/20/jeb-bush-

no-glasses-fashion-advice

Karnani, A. G., Garrette, B., Kassalow, J. S., & Lee, M. (2010).

Better vision for the poor. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9,

66–71.

Kirby, K. N., & Gerlanc, D. (2013). BootES: An R package for

bootstrap confidence intervals on effect sizes. Behavior

Research Methods, 45, 905–927. https://doi.org/10.3758/

s13428-013-0330-5

Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Unkelbach, C., & Alves, H. (2016).

The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic

success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675–709.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046

Kunda, Z., & Sinclair, L. (1999). Motivated reasoning with stereo-

types: Activation, application, and inhibition. Psychological

Inquiry, 10,12–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/

s15327965pli1001_2

Lammers, J., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2009). Iron ladies, men of

steel: The effects of gender stereotyping on the perception of

male and female candidates are moderated by prototypicality.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 186–195. https://

doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.505

Landy, J., Piazza, J. R., & Goodwin, G. (2016). When it’s bad to be

friendly and smart: The desirability of sociability and compe-

tence depends on morality. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 42, 1272–1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0146167216655984

Laustsen, L. (2014). Decomposing the relationship between

candidates’facial appearance and electoral success. Political

Behavior, 36, 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-

9253-1

Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2015). Does a competent leader

make a good friend? Conflict, ideology and the psychologies of

friendship and followership. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36,

286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.001

Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). Winning faces vary by

ideology: How nonverbal source cues influence election and

communication success in politics. Political Communication,

33, 188–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1050565

Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2017). Perceived conflict and

leader dominance: Individual and contextual factors behind

preferences for dominant leaders. Political Psychology, 38,

1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12403

Lawson, C., Lenz, G. S., Baker, A., & Myers, M. (2010). Looking like

a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in New

Democracies. World Politics, 62, 561–593. https://doi.org/

10.1017/S0043887110000195

Leder, H., Forster, M., & Gerger, G. (2011). The glasses stereotype

revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70, 211–222. https://doi.

org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000059

Leiner, D. J. (2015). SoSci Survey (Version 2.6.00-i) [Computer

Software]. Retrieved from https://www.soscisurvey.com

Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2007).

Facial appearance affects voting decisions. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 28,18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

evolhumbehav.2006.09.002

Little, A. C., Roberts, S. C., Jones, B. C., & Debruine, L. M. (2012).

The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male

faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in

wartime and peacetime scenarios. The Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 65, 2018–2032. https://doi.org/

10.1080/17470218.2012.677048

Lundberg, J. K., & Sheehan, E. P. (1994). The effects of glasses

and weight on perceptions of attractiveness and intelligence.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 753–760.

Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and

voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. The

American Political Science Review, 88,63–76. https://doi.org/

10.2307/2944882

Lutz, G. (2010). The electoral success of beauties and beasts.

Swiss Political Science Review, 16, 457–480. https://doi.org/

10.1002/j.1662-6370.2010.tb00437.x

Manz, W., & Lueck, H. E. (1968). Influence of wearing glasses on

personality ratings: Crosscultural validation of an old experi-

ment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27, 704–704. https://doi.

org/10.2466/pms.1968.27.3.704

McCurley, C., & Mondak, J. J. (1995). Inspected by #1184063113:

The influence of incumbents’competence and integrity in US

House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 864–

885.

Merry, S. (2012). Eye see you: How criminal defendants have

utilized the nerd defense to influence jurors’perceptions.

Journal of Law & Policy, 21, 725–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1468-0343.1992.tb00056.x

Morton, R., & Cameron, C. (1992). Elections and the theory of

campaign contributions: A survey and critical analysis. Eco-

nomics & Politics, 4,79–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

0343.1992.tb00056.x

Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2016).

The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experi-

mental Political Science, 2, 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/

XPS.2015.19

Olivola, C. Y., Tingley, D., & Todorov, A. (2018). Republican voters

prefer candidates who have conservative-looking faces: New

evidence from exit polls. Political Psychology, 39, 1157–1171.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12489

Olivola, C. Y., Tingley, D., & Todorov, A. (2018). Republican voters

prefer candidates who have conservative-looking faces: New

evidence from exit polls. Political Psychology, 39, 1157–1171.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12489

Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face

evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

105, 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood

model of persuasion. In R. E. Petty & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.),

Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes

to attitude change (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Springer.

Pindell, J. (2015). Four-eyes for president. The Boston Globe.

Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/

13/four-eyes-for-president/S8q2IX7pr1MzZLS981qV5J/story.

html

Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and

persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Poutvaara, P. (2014). Facial appearance and leadership: An

overview and challenges for new research. The Leadership

Quarterly, 25, 801–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.

08.003

Poutvaara, P., Jordahl, H., & Berggren, N. (2009). Faces of

politicians: Babyfacedness predicts inferred competence but

not electoral success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-

ogy, 45, 1132–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.007

Praino, R., Stockemer, D., & Ratis, J. (2014). Looking good or

looking competent? Physical appearance and electoral success

in the 2008 congressional elections. American Politics

Research, 42, 1096–1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1532673x14532825

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 13

R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical

computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Com-

puting. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/

Rosar, U., Klein, M., & Beckers, T. (2008). The frog pond beauty

contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the

constituency candidates at the North Rhine-Westphalia state

election of 2005. European Journal of Political Research, 47,

64–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00720.x

Rosenberg, S. W., Kahn, S., Tran, T., & Le, M.-T. (1991). Creating a

political image: Shaping appearance and manipulating the

vote. Political Behavior, 13, 345–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/

586121

Rosenberg, S. W., & McCafferty, P. (1987). The image and the vote:

Manipulating voters’preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51,

31–47.

Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B. Jr., Ozono, H., Nakashima,

S., Yoshikawa, S., & Watabe, M. (2010). Polling the face:

Prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 98,1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/

a0017673

Sczesny, S., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Meta-cognition about biological

sex and gender-stereotypic physical appearance: Conse-

quences for the assessment of leadership competence. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,13–21. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0146167203258831

Shephard, M., & Johns, R. (2008). Candidate image and electoral

preference in Britain. British Politics, 3, 324–349. https://doi.

org/10.1057/bp.2008.8

Spisak, B. R., Blaker, N. M., Lefevre, C. E., Moore, F. R., &

Krebbers, K. F. B. (2014). A face for all seasons: Searching for

context-specific leadership traits and discovering a gen-

eral preference for perceived health. Frontiers in Human

Neuroscience, 8, 792. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.

00792

Spisak, B. R., Dekker, P. H., Krüger, M., & van Vugt, M. (2012).

Warriors and peacekeepers: Testing a biosocial implicit lead-

ership hypothesis of intergroup relations using masculine and

feminine faces. PLoS One, 7, e30399. https://doi.org/10.1371/

journal.pone.0030399

Spisak, B. R., Homan, A. C., Grabo, A., & van Vugt, M. (2012).

Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial contingency model of

leadership in intergroup relations using masculine and femi-

nine faces. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 273–280. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.006

Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in

organizations: An evolutionary perspective. In G. Saad (Ed.),

Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 165–190).

Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Stratmann, T. (2005). Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial)

review of the literature. In W. F. Shughart II & R. D. Tollison

(Eds.), Policy challenges and political responses (pp. 135–156).

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Sussman, A. B., Petkova, K., & Todorov, A. (2013). Competence

ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in

Bulgaria. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 771–

775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.003

Swinford, S. (2013). David Cameron wears glasses in public for

first time. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.

co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10300348/David-

Cameron-wears-glasses-in-public-for-first-time.html

Terry, R. L., & Krantz, J. H. (1993). Dimensions of trait attributions

associated with eyeglasses, men’s facial hair, and women’s

hair length. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1757–

1769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01064.x

Terry, R. L., & Kroger, D. L. (1976). Effects of eye correctives on

ratings of attractiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 562–

562. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1976.42.2.562

Thompson, E. P., Roman, R. J., Moskowitz, G. B., Chaiken, S., &

Bargh, J. A. (1994). Accuracy motivation attenuates covert

priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 474–489.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.474

Thornton, G. R. (1943). The effect upon judgments of personality

traits of varying a single factor in a photograph. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 18, 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00224545.1943.9921704

Thornton, G. R. (1944). The effect of wearing glasses upon

judgments of personality traits of persons seen briefly. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 28, 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/

h0055862

Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005).

Inferences of competence from faces predict election out-

comes. Science, 308, 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/

science.1110589

Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015).

Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences,

accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psy-

chology, 66, 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-

113011-143831

van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and

followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,

354–371. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_5

van Vugt, M. (2014). On faces, gazes, votes, and followers:

Evolutionary psychological and social neuroscience approaches

to leadership. In J. Decety & Y. Christen (Eds.), New frontiers in

social neuroscience (pp. 93–110). Cham Switzerland: Springer.

van Vugt, M., Johnson, D. D. P., Kaiser, R., & O’Gorman, R. (2008).

Evolution and the social psychology of leadership: The mis-

match hypothesis. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R.

Forsythe (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads (Vol. 1, pp.

267–282). Westport, CT: Praeger.

van Vugt, M., & Ronay, R. (2013). The evolutionary psychology of

leadership: Theory, review, and roadmap. Organizational Psy-

chology Review, 4,74–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/

2041386613493635

Verhulst, B., Lodge, M., & Lavine, H. (2010). The attractiveness

halo: Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than

others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 111–117. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s10919-009-0084-z

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the

metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36,1–48.

https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in

social life. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey, D. T. Gilbert,

S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social

psychology (4th ed., Vols. 1 and 2, pp. 446–496). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related

traits in political perception. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27,

319–324.

Yzerbyt, V. Y., Schadron, G., Leyens, J.-P., & Rocher, S. (1994).

Social judgeability: The impact of meta-informational cues on

the use of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66,48–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.

66.1.48

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2005). Appearance DOES

matter. Science, 308, 1565–1566. https://doi.org/

10.1126/science.1114170

Social Psychology (2018) Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing

14 A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Niek de Boer and Andrea Przegendza for

developing the stimuli, and Agneta Gille for letting us include her

pictures in this paper.

Funding

This research was partly funded by a Leo-Spitzer-Prize for Junior

Researchers awarded to Joris Lammers by the University of Cologne.

Authorship

Alexandra Fleischmann, Joris Lammers, Janka I. Stoker, and Harry

Garretsen designed the study concept. A. Fleischmann and

J. Lammers designed the studies, and A. Fleischmann collected and

analyzed the data. A. Fleischmann drafted the manuscript; all authors

edited the manuscript and approved of the final version.

History

Received November 30, 2017

Revision received July 23, 2018

Accepted July 23, 2018

Published online December 10, 2018 Alexandra Fleischmann

Sozialpsychologie

Social Cognition Center Cologne

University of Cologne

Richard-Strauss-Str. 2

50931 Köln

Germany

alexandra.fleischmann@uni-koeln.de

ORCID

Alexandra Fleischmann

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8290-4561

Ó2018 Hogrefe Publishing Social Psychology (2018)

A. Fleischmann et al., Glasses Increase Electoral Success 15

Recognition for a black couple in a mock silver alert: Comparing couples presented together or separately with or without glasses

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022
CURR PSYCHOL

Demographic trends indicate an increasing elderly population accompanied by an increase in the prevalence of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). These trends are likely to result in increasing numbers of elderly individuals who wander away from home or care facilities. There is limited research on the efficacy of systems for alerting the public about missing elderly individuals, such as Silver Alerts (SA). Previous research on SAs was limited to alerts featuring White senior citizens. The present study is the first to extend SA research to Black senior citizens. A sample of college students (N = 210) viewed a mock SA along with a short video of a "missing" couple and later attempted to recognize the two individuals from a series of photos. The male and female targets were shown in the SA either together or separately and with or without glasses, and participants were shown photos with and without glasses. The results indicated no effect of whether the couple was shown together or separately, but participants were more likely to recognize the missing male without glasses when he had been shown without glasses in the SA. The female target was recognized more often when wearing glasses than when not wearing glasses, irrespective of how she had been shown in the SA. The results suggest that the appearance of the target at encoding and at recognition may affect ability to identify the target, but that such effects may depend on individual characteristics. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02531-8.

Landwehr-Wänke-2023-JESP-Face-to-face

Article

Sep 2023
J EXP SOC PSYCHOL

Contextual modulation of appearance-trait learning

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023
COGNITION

When we encounter a stranger for the first time, we spontaneously attribute to them a wide variety of character traits based on their facial appearance. There is increasing consensus that learning plays a key role in these first impressions. According to the Trait Inference Mapping (TIM) model, first impressions are the products of mappings between ‘face space’ and ‘trait space’ acquired through domain-general associative processes. Drawing on the associative learning literature, TIM predicts that first-learned associations between facial appearance and character will be particularly influential: they will be difficult to unlearn and will be more likely to generalise to novel contexts than appearance-trait associations acquired subsequently. The study of face-trait learning de novo is complicated by the fact that participants, even young children, already have extensive experience with faces before they enter the lab. This renders the study of first-learned associations from faces intractable. Here, we overcome this problem by using Greebles – a class of novel synthetic objects about which participants had no previous knowledge or preconceptions – as a proxy for faces. In four experiments (total N = 640) with adult participants we adapt classic AB-A and AB-C renewal paradigms to study appearance-trait learning. Our results indicate that appearance-trait associations are subject to contextual control, and are resistant to counter-stereotypical experience.

Competent and cold: a directed content analysis of warmth and competence dimensions to identify and categorise stereotypes of scientists portrayed in meme-based GIFs

Article

Mar 2022
INT J SCI EDUC

Memes within animated graphical interchange formats (GIFs) are developed and shared by Internet users to communicate cultural ideas, symbols, or practices for a wide global audience. Among the billions of GIFs shared internationally, some portray scientists engaged in scientific work. Media and science education scholarship alike have evidenced how scientists are portrayed can influence social perceptions of science and contribute to stereotypes that deter youth’s interest in and affinity to science and science occupations. To understand what social perceptions of science may manifest from new media (GIFs), the present study ascertained stereotypes using Warmth and Competence constructs from Fiske’s Stereotype Content Model (SCM). The SCM utilizes high, medium, and low warmth and competence dimensions found in media-based imagery to illuminate stereotypes. Researchers coded and categorised 287 meme-based GIFs of scientists sourced the largest online GIF repository, Giphy. A directed qualitative content analysis found high-competence and low-warmth dimensions most represented within the sample that theoretically (per SCM) represent perceptions that contribute to an envious stereotype with elements of admiration and contempt. This study suggests that although there have been improvements in the portrayals of scientists in media, however, GIFs may preserve and perpetuate the trope of the competent, yet cold, scientist.

Culturally learned first impressions occur rapidly and automatically and emerge early in development

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2020

Previous research indicates that first impressions from faces are the products of automatic and rapid processing and emerge early in development. These features have been taken as evidence that first impressions have a phylogenetic origin. We examine whether first impressions acquired through learning can also possess these features. First, we confirm that adults rate a person as more intelligent when they are wearing glasses (Study 1). Next, we show this inference persists when participants are instructed to ignore the glasses (Study 2) and when viewing time is restricted to 100 milliseconds (Study 3). Finally, we show that six-year-old, but not 4-year-old, children perceive individuals wearing glasses to be more intelligent, indicating that the effect is seen relatively early in development (Study 4). These data indicate that automaticity, rapid access, and early emergence are not evidence that first impressions have an innate origin. Rather, these features are equally compatible with a learning model. Keywords: First Impressions;

Social Utilitarianism in Digital Interactions and Distant Worlds

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2023

Online social networks are increasingly consequential in individuals’ professional and personal lives, as many people engage online to create and maintain meaningful relationships and satisfy their needs for social connection. People tend to curate their online representations (profile pictures for different websites, videogame avatars, bitmojis, profile page bios, etc.) with almost as much regularity as their corporeal (real-world) self-presentation. As such, the current study explored the socially utilitarian choices people make when presenting themselves in both the corporeal and virtual public spheres. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing various aspects of their self-presentation and behavior in real-life, social media, and online videogames. We found several differences in self-presentation strategies in both online and offline contexts based primarily on ethnoracial background, sex, and skin tone. Minority women (particularly Multiracial women) reported dyeing their hair significantly more than White women, and the overwhelming majority reported dyeing their hair a lighter color than their natural hair color. Women use more emojis and exclamation points in emails and digital interactions than men, and they are more likely to use skin lightening filters before posting a selfie on social media. In addition, we found a descriptive pattern indicating that straight women and bisexual women dating men use more filters than lesbians and bisexual women dating women. Finally, in online videogames, men who are below average height reported creating videogame avatars that were taller than they were, individuals with darker skin tones reported creating avatars with skin tones lighter than their own, and introverts reported that they pretend to be extroverted in videogames more than extroverts reported pretending to be introverted. This study highlights the importance of online self-presentation on people’s social lives and the strategies that people utilize to align how they believe they are socially perceived with a more idealized version of themselves, or a version of themselves that will confer greater social capital than what they believe they naturally embody. Given the increasing possibilities of identity customization in the virtual public sphere, further research is needed to fully understand the complex relationship between online and offline self-presentation.

The cultural learning account of first impressions

Article

Jun 2022
TRENDS COGN SCI

Humans spontaneously attribute character traits to strangers based on their facial appearance. Although these ‘first impressions’ typically have no basis in reality, some authors have assumed that they have an innate origin. By contrast, the Trait Inference Mapping (TIM) account proposes that first impressions are products of culturally acquired associative mappings that allow activation to spread from representations of facial appearance to representations of trait profiles. According to TIM, cultural instruments, including propaganda, illustrated storybooks, art and iconography, ritual, film, and TV, expose many individuals within a community to common sources of correlated face–trait experience, yielding first impressions that are shared by many, but typically inaccurate. Here, we review emerging empirical findings, many of which accord with TIM, and argue that future work must distinguish first impressions based on invariant facial features (e.g., shape) from those based on facial behaviours (e.g., expressions).

How static facial cues relate to real-world leaders’ success: a review and meta-analysis

Article

Jun 2020

People use facial information to infer others’ leadership potential across numerous domains; but what forms the basis of these judgements and how much do they matter? Here, we quantitatively reviewed the literature on perceptions of leaders from facial cues to better understand the association between physical appearance and leader outcomes. We used standard random-effects meta-analytic techniques to determine how appearance cues relate to leader perceptions and associated constructs. Appearance cues suggesting the presence of qualities often desired in leaders correlated with leader selection and success (M Z-r =.26, 95% CI [.21,.31]). Larger effect sizes emerged for popularity outcomes (i.e., those based on perceptions) than for performance outcomes (i.e., those based on external measures). These data help to explain how people envision leaders and their characteristics, providing potential insights to why they select and follow particular individuals over others.

The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2017
J PUBLIC ECON

Since good-looking politicians win more votes, a beauty advantage for politicians on the left or on the right is bound to have political consequences. We show that politicians on the right look more beautiful in Europe, the United States and Australia. Our explanation is that beautiful people earn more, which makes them less inclined to support redistribution. Our model of within-party competition predicts that voters use beauty as a cue for conservatism when they do not know much about candidates and that politicians on the right benefit more from beauty in low-information elections. Evidence from real and experimental elections confirms both predictions.

The ABC of Stereotypes About Groups: Agency/Socioeconomic Success, Conservative-Progressive Beliefs, and Communion

Article

Full-text available

May 2016
J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

Previous research argued that stereotypes differ primarily on the 2 dimensions of warmth/communion and competence/agency. We identify an empirical gap in support for this notion. The theoretical model constrains stereotypes a priori to these 2 dimensions; without this constraint, participants might spontaneously employ other relevant dimensions. We fill this gap by complementing the existing theory-driven approaches with a data-driven approach that allows an estimation of the spontaneously employed dimensions of stereotyping. Seven studies (total N = 4,451) show that people organize social groups primarily based on their agency/socioeconomic success (A), and as a second dimension, based on their conservative-progressive beliefs (B). Communion (C) is not found as a dimension by its own, but rather as an emergent quality in the two-dimensional space of A and B, resulting in a 2D ABC model of stereotype content about social groups. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns

Book

Jan 1991

Samuel L. Popkin

Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America

Book

Jul 2012

Martin Gilens

Republican Voters Prefer Candidates Who Have Conservative-Looking Faces: New Evidence From Exit Polls: Political Facial Stereotypes

Article

Mar 2018

Research shows people share common political facial stereotypes: They associate faces with political ideologies. Moreover, given that many voters rely on party affiliation, political ideology, and appearances to select political candidates, we might expect that political facial stereotypes would sway voting preferences and, by extension, the share of votes going to each candidate in an election. And yet few studies have examined whether having a stereotypically conservative‐looking (or liberal‐looking) face predicts a candidate's vote shares. Using data from U.S. election exit polls, we show that the Republican voters within each state are more likely to vote for a candidate (even a Democrat) the more that person has a stereotypically Republican‐looking face. By contrast, the voting choices of the Democratic voters within each state are unrelated to political facial stereotypes. Moreover, we show that the relationship between political facial stereotypes and voting does not depend on state‐level ideology: Republican voters in both right‐leaning (“red”) and left‐leaning (“blue”) states are more likely to vote for candidates with conservative‐looking faces. These results have several important practical and theoretical implications concerning the nature and impact of political facial stereotypes, which we discuss.

R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

Book

Jan 2015

Core R Team

R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

Book

Jan 2017

Core R Team

Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance: Individual and Contextual Factors Behind Preferences for Dominant Leaders: Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance

Article

Feb 2017
POLIT PSYCHOL

Recent research finds that political candidates and leaders with dominant, masculine physical features are more preferred under conditions of conflict than of cooperation. Importantly, however, methodological limitations of past research have hindered the identification of whether this effect reflects that voters intuitively view (1) dominant leaders as more competent in solving problems of conflict, (2) nondominant leaders as more competent in solving problems of cooperation, or (3) both. In this article, we utilize recent advances in evolutionary psychology to form precise predictions on the nature of the underlying psychology and employ an unprecedented array of data types—including highly controlled experiments, natural experiments, and behavioral measures—to investigate the validity of these predictions. Using large approximately nationally representative surveys of 2,009 Poles and Ukrainians fielded during the Crimea crisis in 2014, we find that preferences for leader dominance are exclusively driven by the intuition that dominant leaders are better able to facilitate aggressive responses during social conflict and that these preferences are regulated by contextual conditions and individual predispositions related to such responses.

The effects of glasses and weight on perceptions of attractiveness and intelligence

Article

Jan 1994
J Soc Behav Pers

When Its Bad to Be Friendly and Smart: The Desirability of Sociability and Competence Depends on Morality

Article

Jul 2016

Morality, sociability, and competence are distinct dimensions in person perception. We argue that a person’s morality informs us about their likely intentions, whereas their competence and sociability inform us about the likelihood that they will fulfill those intentions. Accordingly, we hypothesized that whereas morality would be considered unconditionally positive, sociability and competence would be highly positive only in moral others, and would be less positive in immoral others. Using exploratory factor analyses, Studies 1a and 1b distinguished evaluations of morality and sociability. Studies 2 to 5 then showed that sociability and competence are evaluated positively contingent on morality—Study 2 demonstrated this phenomenon, while the remaining studies explained it (Study 3), generalized it (Studies 3-5), and ruled out an alternative explanation for it (Study 5). Study 6 showed that the positivity of morality traits is independent of other morality traits. These results support a functionalist account of these dimensions of person perception.

You Can Leave Your Glasses on: Glasses Can Increase Electoral Success

Abstract

Recommended publications

Energy keep us going

University of Groningen in 83rd place on THE ranking list

Origins Center to open at Fundamentals of Life in the Universe symposium

A grand future with small particles. Nanotechnology affects many aspects of our lives

Comparative assessment of pedestrian crossing behavior at Baghdad and Nasiriya

Why (and how) Superman hides behind his glasses: the difficulties of face matching

Smart Maternity-wear

TaPS widgets: Tangible control over private spaces on interactive tabletops