Study: Women Candidates Must Look Good

But For Men, Competence Seems To Be The Key Factor In Wooing Voters

(CBS)  Women running for top offices need to appear competent and attractive, according to a new study. For male candidates, seeming competent may be enough.

It's a finding that could help justify heavy spending on makeup and wardrobe for Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, while at the same time raising questions about the need for a man like John Edwards to invest in a costly haircut.

"What we found was quite startling," said Joan Y. Chiao of Northwestern University's psychology department.

For male candidates, the only thing that mattered was competence, while female voters preferred men who seemed both competent and approachable.

But for "female candidates for a hypothetical election for the United States presidency, both male and female voters were more likely to vote for candidates that were both competent and attractive," Chiao said in a telephone interview.

"Neither trait (alone) was sufficient to predict whether a person was going to vote for that candidate," she added. Chiao's findings are being published online by the journal PLoS ONE.

"For female candidates, it really matters if they're perceived as competent and perceived as attractive. Those two qualities are sort of twin predictors of whether or not someone is going to be more or less likely to vote for them," Chiao stressed.

Why?

"There are a lot of potential theories," she said. Most likely may be the way people choose friends and mates.

"There's a lot of talk about voters thinking, in their mind, 'Who would I like to go out for a beer with' when they're evaluating potential candidates. We think that that taps really well into the gut instincts that voters use when they're thinking about who they're going to vote for."

"These gut instincts that we use in mate selection are operating unconsciously in leader selection," she explained. "This is all operating unconsciously, people don't even realize how they're making these decisions," she said.

Past studies have also looked at the effect of attractiveness in politics.

A 2005 study, for example, found that candidates who appeared more mature did better than ones with a babyface. Researchers at that time said maturity helped voters infer competence in the candidate.

So, how did Chiao and her colleagues reach their conclusion?

They collected photos of congressional candidates from 2006 and asked a panel of 73 college students to rate the candidates for competence, dominance, attractiveness and approachability.

None of the students recognized any of the candidates and most had never voted in a real election.

Overall, men tended to be rated more competent than women. Female students rated male candidates as appearing more dominant, while male students saw no difference in dominance.

All the students rated female candidates more attractive than men, and female candidates were rated as more approachable.

Once they had the sets of ratings for the candidates, the researchers divided them into pairs and asked the students to select which one they would be more likely to choose as president.

Their conclusions about the qualities needed to win votes were based on the winners of those hypothetical contests.

So, would these results be the same for adults?

"It's possible older adults, past the stage of romantic partnerships, may show less of a gender bias," Chiao said.

And she said familiarity seems to breed comfort. As more and more women win office, voters tend to become more comfortable choosing them.

[marlenemn]

Well MarleneMN, when, and if you can find your way to the polls, remember the hundreds of millions that Obama spent to get elected. What could the country do with that money?

When it is said that he received private money and McCain received public money, remember this, It all came from the same source, you and me. There is no such thing as public money, it''''s our tax money. So direct or indirect, it is our money the candidates are spending and the big "O" is spending a lot more than the other guy.

________________________________________
Posted by drputt45
Well, drputt:

Point well taken. But, instead of Lobbyists and Big Business and Oil Companies and Insurance Companies and pharmaceutical companies, etc -- Obama got his money from ordinary people like me who believe in: equally for all, science, and (REAL) education.

I am disabled, but believe me drputt45, I WILL find my way to the polls along with everyone else who has a conscience and a reality of what is going on in the USA.

[mitch5511]

It just goes to show how sexist Republicans really are! Dems actually focus on intelligence, not looks.

[patocc-2009]

When you go to the polls next week have this image in mind: $150K for clothes to make Palin look good while people in the US are losing their homes because of the Republican party''''s mismanagement of this country
--------------------------

Yeah the democrats are to blame too for this.

[patocc-2009]

With Janet Reno...It was ''''all about'''' competence.
------------------------
Tell that to all the Kids who died in Wako.

[patocc-2009]

The answer is stupid people vote as if they were voting for the Prom Queen/King and nothing else. There must be a majority of stupid people living in Alaska and California
------------------------------

Its also stupid to vote for a canidate that you know nothing about but hey people will rationalize that too.

[cheteunice]

I don''t buy the finding for male candidate. I think one major thing going for Obama is his looks, just like JFK and Bill Clinton. But that wouldn''t decide my vote,

[yongamerica]

What? Somebody payed money for a stupid study like this? As opposed to a beauty contestant, a political contestant is measured by intelligence, knowledge and wisdom.

Sarah Palin has very little of any of these attributes. Well how did she get elected governor you ask? How did Arnold get elected governor of California?

The answer is stupid people vote as if they were voting for the Prom Queen/King and nothing else. There must be a majority of stupid people living in Alaska and California.

[guadalcanal3]

With Janet Reno...It was ''all about'' competence.

[drputt45]

Well MarleneMN, when, and if you can find your way to the polls, remember the hundreds of millions that Obama spent to get elected. What could the country do with that money?

When it is said that he received private money and McCain received public money, remember this, It all came from the same source, you and me. There is no such thing as public money, it''s our tax money. So direct or indirect, it is our money the candidates are spending and the big "O" is spending a lot more than the other guy.

[easeup-2009]

No wonder Hilldabeast lost!

[marlenemn]

When you go to the polls next week have this image in mind: $150K for clothes to make Palin look good while people in the US are losing their homes because of the Republican party''s mismanagement of this country .

[dzemog1]

I don''t think anyone disputes that Sarah Palin needs to look good and look the part, but you can do that without spending $150K on clothes and $22K on make-up. It was the incredible excess of going with uber-pricey designers that raised so many eyebrows.

[mumu11]

Dear Moose, while I think that the information you convey is important, I think you put it on the wrong forum.

[mumu11]

You forgot Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir: true beauties, both of them, heh?

[darkfyreaol]

Uh, not really true. Just look at Condoleeza Rice and the Bush family.

[carlylaine]

tru_america1 .....You''rE ticked because you didn''t get the money. QUITCHERBELLYACHIN''

[fedup_w_pols-2009]

This is obviously not true or Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein and Hillary would never have been elected. Although I know a lot of their female voter base has a full set of softball equipment in the cars as well.

[secondthink]

Show me a picture and I''ll tell you what I think. Yes, Yes ... that''s why I turn the sound off when I listen to Presidential debates

[petedoc73um]

I have a feeling that the results of this study would be different if, instead of using a panel of college students, a panel of professionals in their forties, or a group of retired people, or a panel of non-college-educated working people was used. To make broad statements about the general population, based on the opinions of 73 socially immature young people laking in substantial life experience, gets news coverage but isn''t especially useful to anyone.

[mytoosense]

Margaret Thatcher garnered respect due to her great beauty.

As does Madeline Aldrich, Angela Merkel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sandra Day O''''''''Conner and other famous women.

This is tongue-in-cheek, of course.

Posted by perk235

Don''t forget Madeline Albright and Janet Reno.

The only one I can think of who is pretty and smart is Condi.