1. Robert Johns and Mark Shephard
Face Off?
The potential impact of printing photographs on ballot papers in British elections
Robert Johns and Mark Shephard

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. High
Low
Election 1
Without photos
50.8%
49.2%
With photos
48.8%
51.2%

21. High
Low
Election 2
Without photos
50.6%
49.4%
With photos
50.0%

22. Election 3 p<0.05 High Low Without photos 49.7% 50.3% With photos
53.5%
46.5%

23. Election 4 p<0.01 High Low Without photos 48.4% 51.6% With photos
54.0%
46.0%

24. Election 5 Warm Warm Without photos 52.2% 47.8% With photos 52.4%
47.6%

25. Election 6 Strong Strong Without photos 48.4% 51.6% With photos 49.2%
50.8%

26. Aggregated results (vote choices)

27. Candidate characteristics

28. Voter characteristics

29. Summary Without ballot photos… With 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. Robert Johns and Mark Shephard
Face Off?
The potential impact of printing photographs on ballot papers in British elections
Robert Johns and Mark Shephard