Page 2 of 2   <      

Look and Act Like a Winner, and You Just Might Be One

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Benjamin said that while economists have long thought the shape of the economy played a central role in elections, the study showed that it was less important than charisma.

"Economists have focused on the performance of the economy under the incumbent," he said. "Those factors explain at most 10 percent of the variation in the election outcomes and probably much less, whereas the personal factors explain between 20-30 percent."

Isn't such superficiality a bad thing? Benjamin argued that was not clear. While voters could be electing unqualified people who happen to be charismatic, he said it was equally possible charisma is an essential ingredient for leadership. If charismatic politicians were better able to get their policies enacted, wouldn't it make sense to want such telegenic leaders?

If you are a diehard Republican or Democrat, you are probably rolling your eyes. You would never vote for a candidate simply based on looks.

This is true, but no one said charisma explains how everyone votes. People with strong ideological beliefs probably override such initial reactions to support their party candidate. But charisma could play a significant role for voters with less certain views -- the swing voters who often decide who wins.

"My guess is it affects undecided voters, these are the guys who swing the elections at the end," said Alexander Todorov, a psychologist at Princeton University who has conducted similar experiments. He found that when people are shown two photographs of political candidates but given no other information, they usually have a quick feeling about who looks more competent.

Such quick guesses in the House and Senate elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004 proved not only accurate in guessing who won but in predicting who would win an upcoming race.

Todorov said that however unscientific and biased snap judgments might be, they could influence elections not only in deciding which candidate to vote for but in deciding whether to vote at all: "If it is a close race and you are undecided but you have a mild preference for the challenger, but the incumbent looks very competent, maybe you won't go in and vote."


<       2


© 2006 The Washington Post Company