1. Facing the voters The potential impact of printing photographs on ballot papers in British elections Robert Johns and Mark Shephard robert.johns@strath.ac.uk mark.shephard@strath.ac.uk

2. Photographs on UK ballot papers Harriet Harman (2005): “ballot papers should be printed with our photographs on them so people know who we are and that we are prepared to put ourselves forward” (As in S. Africa, Ireland, some Balkan republics) Electoral Commission (2003) recommends pilot Government rejects on administrative grounds MPs raised concerns about photo manipulation But an impact even without manipulation…?

3. Why an impact? I – the social psychology Ecological theory of social perception (Gibson, Zebrowitz) Instant impressions from facial appearance –‘system 1’ > ‘system 2’ processing –often emotionally charged –reliable but not necessarily valid –shape subsequent judgements/evaluations Image as a heuristic : a shortcut to judgement

4. Why an impact? II – the US evidence Two types: Real election results –real candidates evaluated on basis of image –  real votes for those with images viewed positively –e.g. Todorov et al (2005): 69% of Senate races could be predicted by 1-second view of an image Experimental studies –hypothetical candidates evaluated on basis of image –candidates rated on ‘willingness to vote for X’/mock elections –e.g. Rosenberg et al (1986): more appealing candidates received 60% of the total vote

5. Why an impact? III - Partisan dealignment US voters much more used to judging candidates UK elections dominated by party But are they? –only half of voters identify with a party –party labels tell us less about policy/ideology So simple partisan heuristic no use to many voters Need a different shortcut, e.g. –Newspaper endorsement –Respected friends –Preferred leader –Image?

6. Appearance and ballot photographs Without ballot photos… Lots of people report seeing election leaflets But seeing isn’t reading (or processing) And many don’t know their MP (or challengers) So maybe a small effect? With ballot photos… All voters primed to consider image Useful for those who care/know little about politics Accessibility > accuracy in heuristic use

7. Who may be affected? Candidate characteristics Electoral attractiveness “There are some people whose faces bear the stamp of such vulgarity and baseness of character, such an animal lack of intelligence, that one wonders how they can appear in public with such a countenance (Schopenhauer, 1942) Electoral attractiveness = the reported likelihood to vote for a candidate based only on his/her photograph

8. Who may be affected? Candidate characteristics Age Any bias (to young candidates?) magnified Gender Any bias magnified Female candidates judged more by image? ‘Trait-trespassers’ rewarded

9. Who may be affected? Voter characteristics Partisanship Non-partisans more affected Engagement Less engaged more open to image Gender Females socialised to consider image more Age Young people image-obsessed (  Daily Mail )

10. Prior study Respondents shown photos of little-known MPs Rated 36 MPs on 8 traits… –competence, intelligence, leadership ability, charisma, likeability, attractiveness, honesty, caring –factor analysed into ‘strength’ and ‘warmth’ …and to report ‘probability to vote’ for each MP Random assignment between two conditions: – Unaware – not told MP’s name or party – Aware – told both ‘Unaware’ PTVs = electoral attractiveness

11. This study 6 experimental elections –High male v low male (Con v Lab) –High female v low female (Con v Lab) –High female v low male (Con v LD) –High male v low female (Con v LD) –Warm male v warm female (Lab v LD) –Strong female v strong male (Lab v LD) Conducted over the internet by YouGov

12. Experimental elections Each experimental election: Consult two ‘flyers’, one for each candidate Buffer questions Vote in the election A 2 x 2 design: Which party got the attractive candidate? Did voters see photos on ballot papers?

13. So half saw this:

14. And then this:

15. And then this. Or this.

16. The other half saw this:

17. And then this:

18. And then this. Or this.

19. Respondents and data Total N=4,165 –losing those who recognised any MPs Half did Elections 1, 3, 5; half did 2, 4, 6 –so N per election ≈ 2,080 2 x 2 design –So N per condition ≈ 520 Two types of data –Election results –Individual vote choices from data pooled and stacked across experiments (N≈12,000)

20. Election 1 High Without photos50.8%49.2% Low With photos48.8%51.2%

21. Election 2 High Without photos50.6%49.4% Low With photos50.0%

22. Election 3 High Without photos49.7%50.3% Low With photos53.5%46.5% p<0.05

23. Election 4 High Without photos48.4%51.6% Low With photos54.0%46.0% p<0.01

24. Election 5 Warm Without photos52.2%47.8% Warm With photos52.4%47.6%

25. Election 6 Strong Without photos48.4%51.6% Strong With photos49.2%50.8%

26. Aggregated results (vote choices)

27. Candidate characteristics

28. Voter characteristics

29. Summary Without ballot photos… No evidence of appearance effects (Except slightly among non-partisans) With ballot photos… Sometimes no effects Sometimes quite strong effects More effects in mixed-gender contests Tend to benefit younger candidates

30. Points for discussion How big will effects be in real elections? –Not all ‘high v low’ –But students’ ratings may be idiosyncratic –More candidates involved –Taken more seriously (?) –Incumbency recognition effects Isn’t any effect too much?

31. Facing the voters The potential impact of printing photographs on ballot papers in British elections Robert Johns and Mark Shephard robert.johns@strath.ac.uk mark.shephard@strath.ac.uk