If you’re unsure where to put your mark on tomorrow’s ballot, it might be worth knowing that those polished smiles and confident gazes on election posters may be doing more work than you’d expect.
Research suggests a candidate’s appearance can meaningfully shape how people vote. “Those whom the majority perceive as attractive are likely to perform better than their less conventionally appealing counterparts,” says Jesper Dammayer, a professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Psychology, speaking on P1 Morgen.
Lasse Laustsen, an associate professor at Aarhus University’s Department of Political Science, agrees.
“It’s an unconscious bias,” Dammayer observes. “We rely on these instinctive mechanisms when making quick judgments about strangers, a tendency we exhibit across various contexts.”
He also notes that while beauty is partly in the eye of the beholder, there is broad consensus on certain standards. “If you were to combine 20 random faces, you’d likely arrive at an ‘average’ face that many would deem attractive,” Dammayer points out.
The Human Instinct
When voters don’t know much about the people on the ballot, appearance tends to fill the gap. “It’s just human nature,” the experts agree. “While we might not recognize it, we engage these inherent mechanisms when selecting who to support,” Dammayer adds.
More Than Just Looks
As Laustsen points out, though, it isn’t simply a matter of who looks the best.
“It’s not just about a superficial ‘beauty factor’,” he states. “Some studies suggest that appealing candidates tend to perform well, while others indicate that those whose appearances exude competence are favored.”
So what does looking competent actually mean? “That’s a challenging question,” Laustsen admits. “It’s complex because we often assign positive traits, including competence, to those we find attractive.”
Researchers call this the “glory effect” — the tendency to attribute more favorable qualities to people seen as physically attractive.
Dammayer offers a concrete example: “Someone with a youthful, round face, characterized by big eyes and a small nose, might be perceived as more childlike.”
Laustsen argues that the way we size up candidates isn’t all that different from how we read anyone we’ve just met. “We instinctively gauge whether someone seems competent or has a warm personality,” he explains.
“Of course, judging based on appearance feels more superficial than engaging in conversation. However, the same psychological triggers are at play,” he adds.
What voters personally value will shape those snap judgments. For a younger-looking candidate, the read can tip toward inexperience. “A baby-faced candidate may be seen as less capable,” Dammayer notes.
Ideological Influences
Dammayer also points to a telling difference across the political spectrum. For right-wing candidates, projecting a “masculine” or “dominant” image can be a real asset. “Such traits can garner additional votes,” he explains, “while on the left, showing dominance may actually be a disadvantage.”
In politics, where how you look can sometimes overshadow what you stand for, understanding these dynamics matters — for voters trying to make informed choices and for candidates trying to connect with them.
