Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Children Can Predict the Outcomes of Elections Simply by Looking at Candidates’ Faces
We are far more influenced by appearances in our electoral decision-making than we like to admit
On both sides of the Atlantic the battlegrounds are being drawn for political leadership battles. In the U.S., the first candidates for the presidential nominations are coming forward in preparation for the 2016 presidential race. Across the pond, the dust has settled from the British general election and the contest for leadership of the Labour Party has begun; only months after the campaign of the leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband, was mired by one image, an unflattering photograph of the Labour leader eating a bacon sandwich.
The British press, known for its cynical and appearance-obsessed tabloid culture, debated at length whether Miliband was an appropriate “face” to lead the country, based largely on said image of said bacon sandwich. The campaign resulted in a backlash as Labour supporters rallied to rescue Miliband’s image. An alien peering down on the last few days of the British general election might have been forgiven for thinking they were observing some kind of twisted beauty-pageant-meets-sandwich-eating-contest.
We like to think that we have the ability to look beyond appearance and charisma to issues of political importance when deciding who would be the best person to run our country, but evidence from psychology suggests, worryingly, that this is far from the case.
In 2008, in a paper published in Science, researchers asked a group of 681 Swiss children aged 13 and below, to look at photographs of faces and select which people they would choose to be the captain of their ship in a game re-enacting Odysseus’ trip from Troy to Ithaca. What the children didn’t know is that the photos weren’t of sailors, but of political hopefuls in a French parliamentary election.
The experiment was well-controlled using run-off ballots from the second round, in which two candidates compete for one seat. The experiment used only pairs in which the loser was the incumbent to ensure that the losers weren’t particularly incompetent looking — after all, they had previously won the election, so they must have been credible candidates. Pairs of candidates with confounding factors that might have influenced the children’s decision were excluded, for example if the candidates differed in race or gender.
In an astounding 71 percent of cases, the children’s guesses of who would make the best ship captain correctly predicted the election results. When 680 adults were shown the same photos, their competency ratings correctly predicted the true outcome 72 percent of the time! Remember, these were Swiss adults and young Swiss children with little reason to have any knowledge whatsoever of French politicians — all famous politicians were excluded from the analysis, so if appearance were not a factor in how we vote, then there should be no reason for the children’s guesses to be any different from chance.
As an added bonus the researchers showed the same children pairs of photos of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Obama and John McCain. The children correctly predicted the outcomes of both the Democratic nomination and the last US presidential election.
Another study, published in 2005 also in Science, involved participants rating the competence of candidates for the US Senate and House of Representatives based, again, on nothing but their facial appearance. The candidates whose face was rated by participants as more competent won in 71.6 percent of the Senate races and in 66.8 percent of the House races. The participants were still likely to guess correctly even when they were given just one second to make the judgment.
The results are worrying for obvious reasons, needless to say there is absolutely zero evidence that there is any correlation whatsoever between people’s facial appearance and their actual competence. If we were to base decisions about people solely on their faces, we’d be in a very bad place. As the researchers note, (Charles) Darwin recorded in his autobiography that: “he was almost denied the chance to take the historic Beagle voyage — the one that enabled the main observations of his theory of evolution — on account of his nose. Apparently, the captain did not believe that a person with such a nose would possess sufficient energy and determination.”
The evidence that we are incredibly fickle when it comes to making choices about who we vote for doesn’t stop there. As we recently explored on this blog, the “worm” that runs across the screen during televised political debates showing studio audience members’ reactions in real time has been shown to have the power to be the defining factor in who we think won a leadership debate, demonstrated by experiments in which researchers rigged the worm to favor one politician or another.
Sadly, it seems appearance and unconscious biases are far more important factors in our considerations than should be the case. So often in politics it seems there is a false choice, between a politician with good policies but without charisma and with charisma but without good policies. If only there were more with both. Changing any of this is, of course, difficult, if not impossible, but one thing we can all do to help is remember in all our interactions that looks are not a reliable indicator of competence — even though we appear to be programmed to believe that they are.
Image Credit: Shutterstock, The Sun Newspaper, BBC
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work