Why attractive candidates win

How and why might disease be related to beauty at the ballot box? This question is posed by ASU doctoral candidate Andrew Edward White and psychologist Douglas Kenrick with ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

In a piece in the New York Times, the duo discuss their work – recently published in the journal Psychological Science – that breaks from conventional view of the "halo effect" developed by scientists. This effect states that we attribute all kinds of positive characteristics to attractive people and that our votes reflect this.

Kenrick and White argue instead that disease is what impacts "beauty at the ballot box" choices, because those features associated with beauty – smooth skin, shiny hair, body and facial symmetry – are actually indicators of health. 

To test their theory, the two examined health statistics and voting patterns in the U.S. congressional elections, British Parliament and in the workplace. Their findings suggested that people worried about germs were more likely to choose physically attractive politicians or leaders in general.

The authors note: "At first blush, you might not guess that typhoid fever, John F. Kennedy and Sarah Palin had any connection with one another. But the link between disease and leader preferences align with other new findings showing that disease concerns are connected in functional ways to a host of human decisions, from prejudice to religiosity."

You can read more about their work and learn more about your "supposedly reasoned decision making" in their article and in Kenrick's new publication, "The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think."