Abstract
  Introduction
  Methods
  Procedure
  Results
  Discussion
  Tables
  Appendix
  Relevant Links

email:
KEB995@aol.com

Return to Senior Theses
Psychology Homepage

 

The effects of physical and vocal attractiveness:
judging political candidates


Katherine Burke

Keywords:
physical attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, politics, political candidates

Abstract

           Previous research in social and political psychology has shown that both physical and vocal attractiveness have a direct effect on a voter’s judgment concerning political candidates. Previous research conducted in visual-only conditions revealed that individuals who were rated as attractive were also attributed to have desirable personality characteristics, such as more friendly, likeable, successful, warm, and powerful.  These results confirm the “what is beautiful is good” hypothesis.  In auditory-only conditions, research has shown that high vocal attractiveness can elicit higher ratings of power, warmth, honesty, and competence.  The same results hold true in visual-auditory conditions.

           In the present experiment, a pre-test was conducted by undergraduate students who rated 28 photographs of political figures and 28, twenty-second voice segments on attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  The 8 highest and lowest rated photographs and voice segments were used in the present study.  In the present experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of 3 conditions, visual-only, auditory-only, and visual-auditory.  The participants rated each political figure on attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability in each of the 3 conditions. In the visual-only condition, participants saw 8 photographs one at a time on a power point presentation.  In the auditory-only condition, participants heard the voice segments and did not see any photographs.  In the visual-auditory condition, participants saw a picture paired with a voice segment.  Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that perceived attractive figures would rank higher on these 6 characteristics compared to those who were perceived as unattractive.  Also, the visual and auditory conditions were predicted to have stronger ratings than the visual-auditory condition.

           A 3 (presentation of candidate) x 2 (attractive, unattractive) repeated measures ANOVA was used in this study to analyze each of the variables.  The results indicated that participants could distinguish and agree upon which candidates were attractive and unattractive in all 3 conditions.  There was a significant effect of attractiveness for all 6 dependent variables in all 3 conditions.  Candidates that were rated as more attractive were also rated as having more power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability in all 3 presentation conditions. There was no significant effect however for presentation conditions and levels of attractiveness on any of the dependent variables.  According to the results of the present study, both physical and vocal stimuli are equally important and influential in determining attractiveness and personality characteristics in politics.

             The results of this study indicated that there is a universal definition of attractiveness since all participants in each of the 3 presentation conditions were able to agree on which photographs and voices were attractive versus unattractive.  However, some of the attractive photographs and voices were rated higher on attractiveness compared to other photographs and voices that were labeled as attractive.  The same holds true for those photographs and voices that were rated as unattractive.  Some photographs and voices were rated much more unattractive than others.  Along with agreeing on attractiveness, the participants all rated the attractive photographs and voices as having higher levels of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  The manipulation of attractive photographs and voices was successful because it elicited higher ratings of attractiveness and personality characteristics when no other campaign or personal information was present.

            The results of this study can be very beneficial to those studying social psychology, and more specifically political psychology.  It would be interesting to examine the relationship between attractiveness and voting behavior when relevant information is present, such as party identification and issue stance.  Would attractiveness still have a significant effect on attributed personality characteristics when other information is still present?  Research has shown that participants’ evaluations were less influenced by a candidate’s issue position when image information was presented. Also, physical attractiveness influenced evaluations of candidates even when personality information was provided.  Another important question to consider is whether or not men or women are more influenced by attractiveness of a political candidate.  Are those individuals that are more politically active less likely to make evaluations of candidates based on attractiveness alone? Further research is warranted to examine exactly what effect attractiveness plays when other information is present on voting behavior.

Return to top

Introduction
            During each political election, the voter has the responsibility to make informed decisions concerning political candidates.  The voter should take many factors into consideration; party affiliation, issue position, attractiveness, and personality.  Many voters neglect to take into consideration party affiliation and issue position and focus mainly on the candidate’s physical and vocal attractiveness.  Physical appearance and personality traits can be a strong factor in an individual’s decision about which candidate would make the better political leader.  Important questions to ask include, are there physical and vocal traits that are universally thought of by individuals as being attractive?  What personality traits can be elicited by both physical and vocal attractiveness?  Do voters really place much importance on the physical and vocal attractiveness of political figures?  The intent of this study is to see if high levels of physical and vocal attractiveness can elicit high ratings of desirable personality characteristics by the majority of the participants.

A person’s physical attractiveness is most obvious and accessible to others in social interactions.  A political figure’s physical attractiveness is one of the first elements that a voter is exposed to.  Can high physical attractiveness alone elicit higher ratings of desirable personality traits?  Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) conducted a study to examine if what is considered beautiful is also considered good.  This study was designed to examine whether physically attractive individuals are assumed by others to possess more socially desirable personality traits than physically unattractive individuals.

           Dion et al. hypothesized that participants would attribute more socially desirable traits to attractive individuals than to unattractive individuals.  The results from the study supported their hypothesis.  Attractive males and females were expected by the participants to attain more prestigious occupations than those who were less attractive.  Attractive individuals were assumed to have better prospects for happier social and professional lives.  This study shows that a physical attractiveness stereotype does exist, and that this stereotype is perfectly compatible with the “What is beautiful is good” hypothesis (Dion et al., 1972, p.289).  If the “What is beautiful is good” hypothesis is applied to judging political figures, high levels of physical attractiveness can determine whom voters choose to represent them.  Those that are considered beautiful will be attributed to have more desirable characteristics a voter looks for in a political candidate.

            Can vocal attractiveness only elicit certain stereotypes?  Berry (1992) wanted to examine the relationship between vocal maturity, attractiveness, and certain stereotypes.  Berry selected voice segments that represented attractive and unattractive voices.  Each participant was randomly assigned to rate the 8 male or 8 female voices.  Voice ratings included perceptions of power, warmth, honesty, and competence.   The results showed that individuals with attractive voices were attributed with greater power, competence, warmth, and honesty than individuals with unattractive voices.  Voices that were rated as babyish were perceived to be less powerful, but more warm and honest than people with mature voices.

            Berry (1990) conducted another study in which she looked at vocal attractiveness and vocal babyishness on impressions of individuals.  Fifteen-second samples of individual’s voices were recorded.  Each individual was asked to recite the alphabet in a normal, neutral tone of voice.  The participants were asked to rate the recorded voices on 2 separate 9-point scales consisting of 8 points.  The 8 points were weak-strong, cold-warm, not assertive-assertive, dominant-submissive, invulnerable-vulnerable, honest-dishonest, cruel-kind, and deceitful-straightforward. 

           The results showed that the effects of vocal attractiveness and vocal babyishness on social perception are independent of each other.  Increased levels of vocal attractiveness produced increased levels of strength, assertiveness, invulnerability, and dominance in only male voices.  Warmth, honesty, and kindness were attributed to attractive female voices.  The results from this study show a relationship between high vocal attractiveness and desirable political characteristics, similar to the effects of physical attractiveness.  The hypothesis for the present study supports the results described above. Higher rated vocal attractive voices in the present study are hypothesized to elicit higher ratings of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.

Research has also been conducted on the combined effects of physical and vocal attractiveness and personality characteristics.  Surawski and Ossoff (2004) looked at the relationship between physical and vocal attractiveness on the impression formations of political figures.  Fifty photographs of political figures were chosen on the basis of attractiveness in a pre-test.  Out of the 50 original photographs, the 5 photographs that received the highest, lowest, and closest to the overall mean were used. Voice segments, which were recorded from C-SPAN, were chosen based on vocal attractiveness in a pre-test.  The fifteen photographs and voices were then paired together based on levels of attractiveness. 

In the experiment, participants were presented with both photographs and voice recordings. Participants were then asked to complete 5 Likert scales on the dimensions of attractiveness, competence, leadership, qualification, and trustworthiness for the 5 photographs.  Participants were encouraged to use their gut reaction when rating the photographs and voice segments (Surawski & Ossoff, 2004).  

           The results from this study revealed that the pre-judged high attractive photographs and voice segments were rating higher on attractiveness then the pre-judged low attractive photographs and voice segments.  The attractive photographs and voice segments were attributed with higher levels of competency, leadership ability, trustworthiness, and qualification for the job.   The results also indicated the element of physical attractiveness takes precedent over vocal attractiveness, however, vocal attractiveness does play a part in determining overall attractiveness.  Presented together, physical and vocal attractiveness produces a response that is larger than each presented separately (Surawski & Ossoff, 2004).  The presented study combines the elements of physical and vocal attractiveness to see if the combined effects are greater than each element separately.  However, in the present study, the hypothesis states that having elements of both physical and vocal stimuli will decrease the ratings of attractiveness compared to effects of physical-only and vocal-only stimuli.

Return to top

Methods
Participants
            
              The participants for this study consisted of 36 undergraduate students, (8 males and 28 females), enrolled in an introduction to psychology course at a small liberal arts college in the northeast.  The participants’ ages ranged from 18-22.  The students received credit for their participation.

Materials

             Twenty-eight black and white photographs of Congressional representatives, consisting of the head and shoulders only, were chosen at random from areas outside of Massachusetts and New Hampshire from the website http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/107_pictorial/states.html (Congressional, 2002). Congressional representatives from the northeast were not included because of the high chance that the participants would recognize and be familiar with these representatives. This could affect the ratings of the Congressmen.  These photographs were pre-judged by 10 undergraduate students from a small liberal arts college in the northeast.  The photographs were rated on a 5-point Likert scale consisting of perceptions of physical attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability (1= not very, 2= somewhat, 3= no opinion, 4= yes, 5= very much).  Of the 28 total photographs, the 8 highest and lowest average rated photographs on the Likert scale were used. 

            In addition to the photographs, 28 voices were collected from televised newscasts found on CSPAN and CSPAN-2 (August, 2004).  The voice segments consisted of neutral topics, and the identity of each voice segment was not easily identifiable.  These voices were recorded on a standard VHS tape.  Each voice segment was 20 seconds in length.  In order to rate the attractiveness of the voices, the same 10 undergraduate students were used.  Participants rated the voices on the same 5-point Likert scale.  The 8 highest and lowest ranking voices were taken and paired with the 8 highest and lowest photographs. 

            Each participant was given a questionnaire at the start of the experiment that included the following elements: sex, age, major, political party identification, level of political interest, political involvement, overall understanding of national and world issues, and whether the participant was planning on voting in the Presidential election in November.  Then, each participant was given either a 5-point Likert scale for the visual-only condition, auditory -only condition, or visual-auditory condition (See appendix A).  The 5-point Likert scales measured levels of physical attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability. 

Return to top

Procedure
              Before starting the experiment, each participant was asked to complete an informed consent form. Each participant was told that the study was concerned with general impressions of political candidates. The setting for the experiment was psychology classrooms that were not in use.  The participants each completed a questionnaire designed to judge political interest.  Each participant was randomly placed into one of 3 conditions: visual-only, auditory-only, or visual-auditory.  Each participant was read aloud a set of directions according to which condition they were placed in (See appendix B).  The participants in the visual condition saw 16 photographs of the political figures on a PowerPoint presentation.  Each participant was asked to complete a 5-point Likert scale consisting of physical attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability, (1= not very, 2= somewhat, 3= no opinion, 4= yes, and 5= very much).  After viewing each photograph, each participant completed the Likert scale.  The participants in the auditory-only condition heard 16 segments of recorded voices.  After hearing each voice segment, participants were asked to rank each candidate on the 5-point Likert scale consisting of vocal attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  The participants in the visual-auditory condition saw 16 photographs matched with the 16 voices.  Each group saw one photograph paired with one voice segment at a time.  The participants were not able to see whom the voices actually belonged to. After seeing each photograph matched with a voice segment, each participant then completed the 5-point Likert scale consisting of physical attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  After the conclusion of the experiment, each participant was debriefed (See appendix C) and asked to keep the details of the experiment to themselves until the completion of the experiments in November.  Each participant was also given a credit slip for participating in the experiment. 

Return to top

Results

            The independent variables in the present study were physical attractiveness of political candidates, vocal attractiveness of political candidates, and physical and vocal attractiveness of political candidates combined.  The dependent variables included the ratings of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability made by the participants.  The main focus of this study was to see if levels of both physical and vocal attractiveness and unattractiveness of a candidate would elicit different responses of the dependent variables in each condition.  Each dependent variable was looked at separately of each other. A 3 (presentation of candidate) x 2 (attractive, unattractive) repeated measures ANOVA was used in this study to analyze each of the variables.

          For the variable of physical attractiveness (visual condition), a significant effect was found on candidates, F(df1=1, df2=22)=4.89, p<.05, and attractiveness, F(df1=1, df2=22)=279.55, p<.05.  There was a significant 2-way interaction between candidate x attractiveness, F(df1= 1, df2=22)=8.73, p<.05 (See Table 1 for means and standard deviations).

          For the variable of vocal attractiveness (auditory condition), a significant effect was found for the variables of the candidate, F(df1=7, df2=154)=3.16, p<.05, and attractiveness, F(df1=1, df2=154)=84.54, p<.05.  There was a significant 2- way interaction of candidate x attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=154) =7.86, p<.05, and a significant 3-way interaction of  candidate x attractiveness x condition, F(df1=7, df2=154)=2.85, p<.05 (See Table 2 for means and standard deviations). 

         For the variable of physical and vocal attractiveness (visual and auditory condition), a significant effect was found on candidates, F(df1=3, df2=77)=3.37, p<.05 , and attractiveness, F(df1=1, df2=77)=166.85, p<.05 .  There was a significant 2-way interaction between candidate x attractiveness, F(df1= 7, df2=77)=3.55, p<.05 (See Table 3 for means and standard deviations). 

        A significant effect was found for the power ratings on candidates, F(df1=7, df2=154)=7.89, p<.05, and the independent variable of attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=154)== 142.59, p<.05.  There were 2, 2-way effect for candidate x attractiveness and attractiveness x condition, F(df1=1, df2=154)= 3.94, F(df1=1, df2=154)= 17.58, p<.05. There was also a 3-way interaction of candidate x attractiveness x condition, F(df1=7, df2=154)=2.83, p<.05 (See Table 4 for means and standard deviations). 

        For the dependent variable of warmth, there was a significant effect for each candidate, F(df1=7, df2=231)=3.44, p<.05, and for attractiveness of candidates, F( df1=1, df2=231)=18.03, p<.05.  There was also a 2-way interaction found for candidate x attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=231)=2.84, p<.05 , and a 3-way interaction of candidate x attractiveness x condition, F(df1=14, df2=231)=2.52, p<.05 (See Table 5 for means and standard deviations).

         The dependent variable of honesty showed a significant effect on the attractiveness variable, F(df1, df2=231)=29.48, p<.05..  There was also a 2-way interaction found for candidate x attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=231)=5.54, p<.05 (, and a 3-way interaction of candidate x attractiveness x condition, F(df1=14, df2=231)=1.88, p<.05(See Table 6 for means and standard deviations) .

        
For the competence variable, a significant effect was found for the candidate variable and for level of attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=231)= 4.96, 75.36, p<.0 , F(df1=14, df2=231)=75.36, p<.05.  A significant interaction was found for attractiveness x condition, F(df1=2, df2=231)=5.75, p<.05.  There was both a significant 2-way interaction for candidate x attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=231)=5.79, p<.05, and a 3-way interaction between candidate x attractiveness x condition, F(df1=14, df2=231)=2.79, p<.05 (See Table 7 for means and standard deviations). 

        
For the final dependent variable of leadership ability, a significant was found for each candidate, F(df1=7, df2=231)=3.75, p<.05, attractiveness, F(df1=1, df2=231)=116.33, p<.05, and an attractiveness x condition interaction, F(df1=2, df2=231)=9.49, p<.05.  There was also a significant interaction for candidate x attractiveness, F(df1=7, df2=231)= 3.69, p<.05 , and a 3-way interaction for candidate x attractiveness x condition, F(df1=14, df2=231)=2.87, p<.05 (See Table 8 for means and standard deviations). 



Return to top
Discussion
              Previous research has shown that attractiveness (both physical and vocal) can elicit the attribution of personality traits such as power, honesty, success, friendliness, competence, and warmth (Dion et al., 1972, & Berry, 1992).  Recent literature has also shown that in conditions of visual-only, auditory-only, and visual-auditory, high attractiveness elicits positive ratings on traits such as power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability (Zuckerman & Driver, 1989).  Based on the review of literature on political attractiveness and personality traits, the hypothesis for the present study stated that when given photographs of attractive candidates or given segments of attractive voices, the participants would rate the candidate high on attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  When participants were given unattractive photographs and voices, they would rate the candidate low on attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  When the participants were given both visual and auditory stimuli, the ratings would not be as high as the single channel stimulus due to the weakening effects of divided attention.  The results of the present study did support the first hypothesis: higher rated attractive candidates were attributed with higher ratings of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability, whereas less attractive candidates were attributed with lower ratings of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  This was true across the 3 presentation conditions: visual-only, auditory-only, and visual-auditory.  The results of this study did not confirm that ratings of the candidates would be higher in the visual-only and auditory-only conditions.  There was no significant effect on ratings between the three conditions. 

Along with physical and vocal attractiveness, participants were also able to agree on the levels of personal characteristics attributed to the attractive and unattractive congressmen.  Those photographs and voices that were rated as attractive were also rated as having higher levels of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  This was held true in all 3 presentation conditions.  Less attractive photographs and voices were attributed with having lower levels of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  In the attractive category, those individuals who were rated as more attractive consistently were rated as having higher personality characteristics.  The same held true for those that were rated as unattractive. 

          The results from this study revealed that there is a universal definition of attractiveness, and attractiveness can elicit personality characteristics.  Without any other information presented, such as political or personality information, participants attributed those individuals who were more attractive as having higher levels of desirable social characteristics. 

The results of this study can be helpful in political campaigns.  Campaign advisors should perhaps focus their attention on the presentation of their candidate to the public more strongly.  Advisors perhaps should alter their candidate’s physical appearance, vocal presentation, and nonverbal cues in order to make the candidate more attractive to the public.  Changes could be made on how a candidate dresses and on facial expressions.  Perhaps more smiling would increase the attractiveness of a candidate.  Also, there should be no noticeable pauses in speeches, which could decrease vocal attractiveness and in turn decrease the level of desirable personality characteristics.  This could be helpful during televised debates and public appearances.  Making a good, solid impression on voters may influence their opinion of a candidate.  Good impressions could influence the voter to collect more information about a candidate, which could in turn increase involvement and enthusiasm for a campaign.  According to this study and previous studies, a more attractive candidate will be attributed with desirable personality traits that could influence voting behavior.  Political campaigns should know as much information as possible about voting behavior in order to help their candidate win the election. 

 Future research on this topic could include studies that examine the influence of attractiveness when other information is presented such as political party identification, issue stance, and voting record.  Will physical attractiveness influence voters more than information about a particular candidate?  Budesheim & DePaola (1994) examined this question and found that participants’ evaluations were less influenced by a candidate’s issue position when image information was presented. Also, physical attractiveness influenced evaluations of candidates even when personality information was provided.    Also, are men or women more influenced by attractiveness versus information about the candidate?  Are those that are more politically involved less influenced by attractiveness?  With the results of these future studies, political campaigns could be more effective in getting their message across and have their candidate win the election.

             It is important to understand how individuals make certain choices, especially political decisions.  When no other information is presented, individuals attribute more attractive individuals with more desirable personality characteristics.  This is especially true with politicians.  It is vital for political campaigns to understand this relationship between attractiveness and voting behavior in order to be successful in elections.  It is also important that voters know and understand that they sometimes fall victim to the “What is beautiful is good” hypothesis (Dion et al., 1972).  If voters are made aware of this, they can guard themselves against making uniformed decisions
 

Berry, D. (1990). Vocal attractiveness and vocal babyishness: effects on stranger, self,

and friend impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14. 141-153.

Berry, D. (1992). Vocal types and stereotypes: joint effects of vocal attractiveness and

            vocal maturity on person perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 61. 41-55.

Budesheim, T., & DePaola, S. (1994).  Beauty or the beast? The effects if appearance,

personality, and issue information on evaluations of political candidates.

            Personality & Social Psychological Bulletin, 20. 399-348.

Congressional pictorial directory. (2002, May) One hundredth and seventh congressional

pictorial directory. Retrieved August 3, 2004, from

Dion, K., Bersheid, & E., Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of

            Personality and Social Psychology, 24. 285-290.

Surawski, M., & Ossoff, E. (2004) The effects of physical and vocal attractiveness on            

              impression formation of politicians.  Working title for the New Hampshire Institute of

              Politics.

Zuckerman, M. & Driver, R.E. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good: the vocal

              attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13. 67-81.


Return to top

Tables

Table 1

Means for Dependent Variable of Physical Attractiveness for Candidate x Attractiveness

 

                                        Attractive                                             Unattractive

                                   M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                               3.708                .168                              1.167                .128

2                               3.042                .188                              1.375                .148

3                               2.708                .234                              1.917                .172

4                               2.792                .260                              1.958                .179

5                               2.542                .220                              1.625                .191

6                               3.958                .156                              1.792                .211

7                               2.792                .222                              1.333                .182

8                               2.875                .182                              1.542                .182
______________________________________________________________

Table 2

Means for Dependent Variable of Vocal Attractiveness for Candidate x Attractiveness

 

                                                Attractive                                             Unattractive

Candidate                     M                                 SD                               M                     SD

1                                  3.111                            .150                              2.222                .151

2                                  2.917                            .194                              2.111                .140

3                                  3.917                            .142                              2.361                .159

4                                  3.194                            .149                              2.556                .189

5                                  4.028                            .132                              2.778                .202

6                                  3.722                            .153                              2.361                .144

7                                  2.750                            .171                              2.500                .181

8                                  3.583                            .132                              2.306                .134


Table 3

 Means for Dependent Variable of Physical Attractiveness/Vocal Attractiveness for Candidate x Attractiveness

 

                                        Attractive                                             Unattractive

Candidate                     M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                                  3.417                .220                              1.792                .208

2                                  2.833                .339                              1.917                .325

3                                  3.208                .257                              2.000                .222

4                                  2.833                .216                              2.042                .189

5                                  3.167                .198                              2.208                .168

6                                  4.250                .115                              1.708                .264

7                                  2.583                .267                              1.675                .109

8                                  3.625                .109                              1.750                .218


Table 4

  Means for Dependent Variable of Power for Condition x Candidate x Attractiveness

 

Candidate/Condition                  Attractive                                                        Unattractive

Physical-only                             M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                                              3.00                  .259                              2.000                .262

2                                              2.500                .242                              2.750                .242     

3                                              3.417                .247                              2.500                .275

4                                              3.667                .257                              2.917                .328

5                                              3.667                .228                              3.333                .350

6                                              3.500                .264                              3.000                .249

7                                              2.500                .296                              3.167                .313

8                                              2.917                .229                              3.000                .305

Vocal-only

1                                              3.000                .259                              2.750                .262

2                                              3.333                .336                              1.583                .242

3                                              4.250                .247                              2.333                .275

4                                              3.333                .257                              2.333                .382

5                                              4.500                .228                              1.917                .350

6                                              3.667                .246                              1.917                .249

7                                              2.667                .296                              2.083                .313

8                                              3.917                .229                              2.000                .305

Phys-vocal

1                                              3.333                .259                              1.917                .262

2                                              2.917                .336                              2.000                .242

3                                              4.083                .247                              2.250                .275     

4                                              2.583                .257                              2.417                .328

5                                              3.917                .228                              3.083                .350

6                                              4.000                .264                              2.167                .249

7                                              3.083                .296                              2.250                .313

8                                              3.917                .229                              1.917                .305


Table 5

 Means for Dependent Variable of Warmth for Condition x Candidate x Attractiveness

 

Candidate/Condition                  Attractive                                                        Unattractive

Physical-only                             M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                                              4.083                .304                              2.583                .281

2                                              3.500                .313                              3.417                .292     

3                                              3.167                .298                              2.667                .276

4                                              3.167                .354                              2.917                .355

5                                              2.917                .305                              3.583                .298

6                                              3.917                .302                              3.167                .308

7                                              3.750                .312                              2.000                .284

8                                              3.250                .243                              2.417                .344

Vocal-only

1                                              2.500                .304                              3.333                .304

2                                              2.500                .313                              2.333                .292

3                                              2.583                .298                              2.250                .278

4                                              2.833                .354                              2.917                .355

5                                              3.583                .305                              2.000                .298

6                                              3.500                .302                              2.583                .308

7                                              3.000                .312                              2.500                .284

8                                              3.083                .243                              2.833                .344

Phys-vocal

1                                              3.333                .304                              2.833                .281

2                                              2.417                .313                              2.750                .292

3                                              2.333                .298                              2.167                .278     

4                                              2.750                .354                              3.000                .355

5                                              3.417                .305                              2.750                .298

6                                              3.250                .302                              2.417                .308

7                                              3.250                .312                              1.917                .284

8                                              3.250                .243                              2.750                .344
________________________________________________________________________

Table 6

 Means for Dependent Variable of Honesty for Condition by Candidate x Attractiveness

 

Candidate/Condition                  Attractive                                                        Unattractive

Physical-only                             M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                                              3.667                .271                              3.583                .321

2                                              3.000                .304                              3.750                .294     

3                                              3.250                .262                              2.583                .243

4                                              3.417                .291                              3.083                .329

5                                              3.167                .257                              3.500                .313

6                                              3.917                .240                              3.167                .337

7                                              3.500                .296                              2.417                .249

8                                              3.333                .239                              2.750                .315

Vocal-only

1                                              3.250                .271                              3.417                .321

2                                              2.833                .304                              2.500                .294

3                                              3.750                .262                              2.750                .243

4                                              3.167                .291                              3.167                .329

5                                              4.167                .257                              2.083                .313

6                                              3.833                .240                              2.667                .337

7                                              3.417                .296                              2.583                .249

8                                              3.833                .239                              2.583                .315

Phys-vocal

1                                              3.250                .271                              2.917                .321

2                                              2.917                .304                              3.417                .294

3                                              3.333                .262                              3.250                .243     

4                                              2.917                .291                              3.250                .329

5                                              3.917                .257                              3.083                .313

6                                              3.750                .240                              2.667                .337

7                                              3.333                .296                              2.333                .249

8                                              3.250                .239                              2.750                .315
________________________________________________________________________

Table 7

Means for Dependent Variable of Competence for Condition x Candidate x Attractiveness

 

Candidate/Condition                  Attractive                                                        Unattractive

Physical-only                             M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                                              3.250                .260                              3.083                .295

2                                              2.667                .300                              3.083                .268     

3                                              3.750                .249                              2.417                .266

4                                              3.667                .237                              3.083                .305

5                                              3.250                .233                              3.417                .291

6                                              4.083                .185                              2.750                .290

7                                              2.833                .334                              2.917                .317

8                                              3.417                .216                              2.833                .328

Vocal-only

1                                              3.833                .260                              3.333                .295

2                                              3.083                .300                              1.917                .268

3                                              4.000                .249                              2.750                .266

4                                              3.417                .237                              2.833                .305

5                                              4.417                .233                              2.000                .291

6                                              4.083                .185                              2.417                .290

7                                              3.250                .334                              2.750                .317

8                                              3.917                .216                              2.750                .328

Phys-vocal

1                                              3.417                .260                              2.417                .295

2                                              3.000                .300                              2.667                .268

3                                              3.750                .249                              2.917                .266

4                                              2.667                .237                              3.250                .305

5                                              4.250                .233                              3.333                .291

6                                              4.167                .185                              2.250                .290

7                                              3.250                .334                              2.333                .317

8                                              3.333                .216                              2.667                .328
________________________________________________________________________

Table 8

 Dependent Variable of Leadership Ability for Condition x Candidate x Attractiveness

 

Candidate/Condition                  Attractive                                                        Unattractive

Physical-only                             M                     SD                               M                     SD

1                                              3.167                .275                              2.583                .329

2                                              2.833                .280                              2.667                .281     

3                                              3.667                .348                              2.833                .357

4                                              3.750                .278                              3.000                .325

5                                              3.583                .254                              3.417                .328

6                                              3.667                .251                              3.250                .313

7                                              2.667                .307                              3.333                .276

8                                              3.417                .233                              2.583                .311

Vocal-only

1                                              3.167                .275                              2.917                .329

2                                              3.333                .280                              2.000                .281

3                                              3.750                .348                              2.500                .357

4                                              3.167                .278                              2.833                .325

5                                              4.167                .254                              1.917                .328

6                                              3.833                .251                              1.917                .313

7                                              3.000                .307                              2.083                .276

8                                              3.750                .233                              2.333                .311

Phys-vocal

1                                              3.667                .275                              2.083                .329

2                                              3.667                .280                              2.667                .281

3                                              3.917                .348                              3.167                .357     

4                                              2.667                .278                              3.250                .325

5                                              4.083                .254                              3.333                .328

6                                              4.333                .251                              2.167                .313

7                                              3.333                .307                              2.333                .276

8                                              3.750                .233                              2.333                .311


Return to top

Appendix
Appendix A
Sample Likert Scale

Name of Political Candidate
                                            not very         somewhat              no opinion            yes               very  much            

physical attractiveness     1                2                 3                      4                      5

vocal attractiveness         1                2                 3                      4                      5

Phys-voc attractivness     1                2                 3                      4                      5

power                             1               2                  3                      4                      5

warmth                           1                2                 3                      4                      5

honesty                           1                2                 3                      4                      5

competence.                    1                2                3                      4                      5

leadership ability              1                2                3                      4                      5
________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B

Directions for visual condition:

 

Before beginning the experiment, each participant must complete the informed consent form.   After doing so, please fill out the questionnaire given to you.  After each participant has filled out the questionnaire, the experiment will start.  There are 16 photographs of political figures that will appear on a PowerPoint presentation.  After viewing each political figure, please rate the photograph on a 5-point Likert scale on dimensions of physical attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  After completing the scale for present photograph, the PowerPoint presentation will move to the next photograph until the 16 photographs are shown.

 

 

Directions for auditory condition:

 

Before beginning the experiment, each participant must complete the informed consent form.   After doing so, please fill out the questionnaire given to you.  After each participant has filled out the questionnaire, the experiment will start.  There are 16 voice segments of political figures that will be heard on a standard VHS tape.  While listening to each voice segment, please rate the voice on a 5-point Likert scale on dimensions of physical attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability. Please take into consideration voice clarity, number of pauses, voice volume, and frequency of words.  After completing the scale for present voice segment, the presentation will move to the next voice segment until the 16 photographs are shown.

 

Directions for visual and auditory conditions:

 

          Before beginning the experiment, each participant must complete the informed consent form.   After doing so, please fill out the questionnaire given to you.  After each participant has filled out the questionnaire, the experiment will start.  There are 16 photographs and voice segments of political figures that will be seen and heard together.  Photographs will be seen a PowerPoint presentation and voice segments will be played on a standard VHS tape. After viewing the photograph and hearing the voice segment, please rate the photograph and voice segment on a 5-point Likert scale on dimensions of physical attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  Please take into consideration voice clarity, number of pauses, voice volume, and frequency of words. After completing the scale for present photograph and voice segment, the presentation will move to the next photograph and voice segment until the 16 photographs and voice segments are shown.
________________________________________________________________________

Appendix C
Defbriefing Statement

Feedback to Participants

 

             My senior thesis examines the relationship between the effects of perceived physical and vocal attractiveness on judging political figures on elements of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  Recent literature has shown that those political figures that are rated as physically and vocally attractive elicit higher ratings of power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster,1972) (Zuckerman, Hodgins, and Miyake,1990).  Also, ratings of the 5 categories were higher when only one condition was presented, either visual or auditory (Zuckerman & Driver, 1989).

 There are 3 conditions in the present study, visual, auditory, and visual-auditory.  Participants in each condition were asked to complete Likert scales on physical attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, power, warmth, honesty, competence, and leadership ability.  It is important to remember that there are no right or wrong responses regarding the Likert scales.  There are many possible reactions one can have to these stimuli. Responses to each question are on the basis of an immediate reaction to each question. 

            The anonymity of each participant and the performance in the study will be kept and respected. If there are any questions or concerns about your participation or on the results of this study, I can be reached by my P.O. Box, # 228.  I am enlisting your aid not to share any of this information with fellow classmates until November 1, 2004 in order to ensure the integrity of the experiment.


Return to top

Relevant Links
Saint Anselm College
Political Candidates
APA
Politics
Political News