For immediate release
How successful
politicians look the part
How would a
group of anonymous overseas citizens who know nothing about
our politicians rate them? About the same as we do? The
answer is yes – with one notable exception.
How
would a group of anonymous overseas citizens who know
nothing about our politicians rate them? About the same as
we do? The answer is yes – with one notable exception.
A
new study recently conducted by a team of researchers from
the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland shows
that a sample of US citizens asked to rate our political
leaders by mugshot alone think that John Key is Competent
and Attractive – more so than Labour Leader David
Cunliffe.
But the big surprise in the Politics of
Appearance survey concerns Internet Mana Leader Laila
Harre—Harre topped the survey on three out of four judging
criteria: Competence, Trustworthiness and
Attractiveness.
“She really stands out,” says Head of
the School of Psychology Professor Will Hayward. “The gap
between her and the others is statistically significant so
you would have to wonder what would happen if she was given
the same exposure and air time as the two main party
leaders.”
The study does, however, reinforce John
Key’s nice-guy image: he comes second to Harre on
Competence and Attractiveness.
“We tend to attribute
positive traits to people we find attractive and that
appears to be the case here. Key stands out as being seen as
more Competent and Attractive than Cunliffe and that gives
him a big advantage before he has even opened his mouth,”
says Lecturer in Political Psychology Dr Danny
Osborne.
New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters gets very
mixed results in the survey: third behind Harre and Key on
Competence, but he ranks at the bottom of the list for
perceived Trustworthiness and Likeability.
“It is pretty
interesting that he doesn’t rate particularly highly on
most of the categories, yet is still viewed as highly
competent; ultimately, he has the face that people can see
being a political leader, even if they don’t judge him as
trustworthy or likeable,” Professor Hayward
says.
Another candidate with mixed fortunes in the face
poll is Conservative Leader Colin Craig: he gets a high
rating for Attractiveness and Likeability – fourth and
third respectively – but is well down the list on the
Competence and Trustworthiness scale (second to bottom for
both).
The survey also asked US participants to rate the
candidates in the key seat of Epsom. Going on appearances
alone, the news is not so good for Act candidate David
Seymour. While National candidate Paul Goldsmith and Labour
candidate Michael Wood are neck and neck when judged solely
on appearance, Seymour is consistently rated as the least
competent out of the three candidates.
Professor Hayward
says research done overseas shows that judgements based on
looks alone often align surprisingly closely with actual
election outcomes.
“Of course voters will consider more
than just how the candidates look, but we predict that Act
may have a harder time winning the seat this election than
in 2011, simply based on their choice of a candidate whose
appearance doesn’t inspire confidence,” Professor
Hayward says.
Dr Osborne adds that: “Overall, the
study’s real purpose is to remind us to think hard about
policies because we’ll all be influenced by appearances
– and so the faces of some of our political leaders may
give them a bit of a boost at the ballot box. But the main
thing is to get to a polling booth and exercise your
democratic right – vote!”
The survey used market
research tool Amazon Mechanical Turk and recruited only US
citizens to rate candidates from National and Labour, as
well as all of the party leaders (and co-leaders), who were
running in the 2014 general election. Survey participants
judged each of the candidates on a scale of 0 to 6 on four
criteria: Competence, Trustworthiness, Likeability and
Attractiveness.