In this time of political divisiveness
in the United States, a recent study by Rolf Peterson and Carl Palmer entitled
"Effects of physical attractiveness on political beliefs"
looks at some interesting research on the connection between conservativeness and physical
attractiveness. Let's look at their findings.
The authors open by noting that, to
date, there has been very little research into the connection of physical
appearance on political life at the level of mass politics, rather, the
emphasis has been on whether more attractive political candidates are able to
persuade voters that they are more worthy of being elected. The
"attractiveness premium" gained by candidates that are more
attractive is particularly prominent for uninformed voters in low-information
elections. In this study, the authors examine how voters' own physical
appearance affects how they view the world around them, answering the question
"Do physically attractive individuals develop in a bubble that creates a
different social experience and, subsequently, different political
attitudes?".
Research in social psychology has shown
that appearance and attractiveness play a significant role in shaping ones
social interactions and social cognition. This is often associated with a
"halo effect"; individuals that are perceived as physically attractive
are generally considered to have other positive traits. These
"attractiveness stereotypes" result in people concluding that more
attractive individuals are both more intelligent and more successful in their
life's endeavours and that their viewpoints are more valuable.
Here's what the authors have to say about how the
degree of attractiveness impacts people from a very young age:
"Attractive children have been
shown to experience warmer treatment from their own parents as well as perfect
strangers. Over a lifespan, these patterns of treatment appear to have a
pronounced effect on the personality traits more attractive individuals exhibit
in social situations, appearing to be more confident, extroverted, happier, and
healthier as they reach adulthood.
The mechanism for this process is a
simple one. By virtue of the treatment they receive as a result of their
appearance, individuals become more likely to internalize positive or negative
behavioral characteristics, thereby altering their behavior. This effect is
potentially exacerbated by behavioral expectations, as posited by expectancy
theory, which asserts that individuals alter their behavior in social
situations based upon what they perceive to be expectations regarding their
behavior.
These social interactions not only
influence behavioral characteristics but also have meaningful influences on
perceived and actual life successes. As would be expected, better-looking
students are perceived as being more capable. However, the advantages do not
end or are seen as well-groomed earn higher grade-point averages in high
school, in addition to receiving higher scores on standardized tests.
More attractive individuals may also have greater levels of educational
attainment, with evidence suggesting that those who are viewed as better
looking spend significantly more time in school."
The result of this relationship between
physical appearance and success can be termed in two ways; the "plainness
penalty" and the "beauty premium", a relationship that carries
into the workplace, ultimately impacting one's ability to get ahead in the
corporate world.
The authors then go on to look at how
attractiveness affects political beliefs. Since society holds that more
attractive people are more knowledgable, more attractive people are more likely
to be sought out for their political opinions. A complicating factor in
the relationship between physical attractiveness and political socialization is
found in the relationship between physical appearance and household
socioeconomic level. Children from households that are able to afford
expensive clothing, dental work and grooming products may appear to be more
attractive than their counterparts who come from a lower rung on the
socioeconomic ladder. This means that socioeconomic status, which is
impacting attractiveness, could be shaping an individual's political leanings.
That said, the fact that parents often treat their children differently
based on their physical attractiveness suggests that our earliest interactions
are not framed by socioeconomic standing but by our physical appearance.
The authors state that ideology (a
belief system that structures individual attitudes toward the proper ends for
society and the means for achieving these ends) is likely to be more coherent
in children coming from households that are more politically engaged. As
well, children who come from more authoritarian households are more likely to
endorse more conservative ideologies. Partisanship, an orientation
through which citizens view the political world, is less a belief system than a
psychological identification with a political party that reflects a shared set
of beliefs. Partisanship is one of the most influential orientation that
individuals hold toward the political system. Studies show that an
individual's partisanship evolves through experiences that individuals have as
they come to age politically, including influence from a person's family and
peers. Since more attractive individuals benefit from more positive
social interactions, are believed to be more intelligent and get more attention
from society, their passage through life is generally "easier",
making it likely that they cannot empathize with the challenges that their less
attractive counterparts face. This would suggest that attractive
individuals "...have a blind spot that leads them not to see the need for
more government support or aid in society. Given that this is one of the
tenets of more liberal citizens, as well as supporters of the Democratic Party,
we would expect that more attractive individuals would develop a worldview that
is less supportive of government intervention and aid to others."
Consequently, the authors expect that more attractive individuals are
more likely to identify as conservative with leanings toward the Republican
Party.
With all of this in mind, the authors
asked the following questions:
1.) Are more attractive individuals
more likely to express higher levels of political efficacy (effectiveness) than less
attractive individuals?
2.) Are more attractive individuals are
more likely to self-identify as conservative?
3.) Are more attractive individuals are
more likely to identify with the Republican Party?
To prove their hypotheses, the authors
use the 1972-74-76 American National Elections Studies (ANES) panel study and
the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS), a study of 10,317 respondents who
graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957.
Let's look at the American National
Elections Studies first. Ideology and partisanship is measured on a 7
point scale with a score of 1 being extremely liberal/strong Democrat to 7
being extremely conservative /strong Republican. Respondents were ranked
by their interviewer on a scale of 1 (homely) to 5 (strikingly handsome or
beautiful). Respondents' high school year book photos were also ranked
for attractiveness by a panel of 12 individuals (6 men and 6 women).
Here are their findings:
1.) Efficacy - more attractive
individuals are likely to be more politically efficacious.
2.) Conservativeness - more attractive
individuals were more likely to identify as conservative.
3.) Republican - more attractive
individuals were more likely to identify as Republican.
As well, higher income individuals were
more likely to identify as both conservative and Republican, suggesting that
there is a positive relationship between political identity and socialization
experiences.
When using the Wisconsin Longitudinal
Study, respondents were asked to identify their political leanings as
Republican, Democrat, Independent or uncertain and ideology was measured on the same seven-point scale ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative.
Again, the results showed that more attractive individuals are more
likely to identify as more conservative and are more likely to self-identify as
Republican. Once again, higher income individuals were also more likely to be conservative
and Republican.
Here is a section from the author's
conclusions:
"While this is an interesting
set of findings, there are larger implications given the evidence that
attractive individuals are more politically efficacious. With the
demonstrated influence of political activists and opinion leaders on mobilizing
citizens, and influencing the views that less engaged citizens hold, and the
greater social influence that more attractive individuals are thought to have,
we may surmise that more attractive individuals may hold political sway over
others in their social networks, regardless of their actual levels of effective
political knowledge. Research in a similar vein has demonstrated that
more attractive individuals are subjectively perceived as more intelligent and
politically knowledgeable, even after accounting for their objective levels of
political information. If attractive individuals are also more
efficacious and more likely to persuade others, we may have further concerns
for the quality of opinion leadership and participation. While
it may be tempting to conceive of attractiveness research on its surface as
shallow or secondary to other components of socialization, it is a mistake to
understate the lasting effects that a lifetime of differential treatment may
have on political attitudes and behavior. Those who are not blessed
with good looks will be less likely to feel empowered, to participate in
politics, to seek re-dress for grievances, or to exercise their political
rights. Physical attractiveness research at the elite and mass
levels can illuminate biases that produce inequality in political activism and
the propensity for individuals to be empowered in politics and government. (my
bold)
Let's close with this
video from Infowars:
Obviously, Paul
Joseph Watson feels that he is among the lucky attractive
people who lean to the right:
No comments:
Post a Comment