Dictators look more trustworthy than monarchs

A study by researchers from French universities, asking participants to rate faces of various non-democratic leaders, reported that participants generally find selected dictators to look more trustworthy than monarchs. These categories of leaders did not differ in the attractiveness and competence ratings they received. The research was published in the International Political Science Review.

Previous research on the facial characteristics of leaders has indicated that democratically elected leaders tend to have particular facial characteristics. In general, election winners tend to look more competent and attractive than their challengers. Interestingly, these perceived facial traits have been found to be uncorrelated with a leader’s actual personality or skills. This means that the electoral success of good-looking candidates can be attributed to voters’ preferences, not to the candidates’ abilities.

However, it remains unclear whether people assess non-democratic leaders in the same way. These leaders come to power through various means, but the study draws a key distinction between those who are selected (e.g., elected, appointed, or foreign-imposed) and those who are not (i.e., hereditary monarchs who inherit their position).

An earlier study found that people find non-democratic rulers to look less trustworthy, less likeable, and less attractive than democratically elected leaders. However, it remained unclear why this difference exists. It is possible that authoritarian “selectorates” (the small, politically informed groups who bring non-democratic leaders to power) are less influenced by a potential leader’s appearance compared to voters in democracies. Alternatively, the difference could be driven by leaders who weren’t selected at all, such as monarchs who simply inherited their position.

To investigate this, study author Abel François and his colleagues compared the perceived facial traits of leaders based on their mode of entry into power, distinguishing between those who were selected to rule and those who inherited their role.

The study authors collected 274 pictures of the faces of non-democratic leaders who held office between 1975 and 2010. The sample was restricted to leaders who spent at least one year in office, were male, and were listed as de facto leaders. They were grouped by the way they gained their position.

• Hereditary succession (18 leaders) included all leaders who inherited power from a relative following established succession rules.
• Coup or Insurgency (95 leaders) encompassed cases in which the leader gained power via a military coup or a civil war, respectively.
• Election (60 leaders) included cases in which the leader was elected either in a previous democratic regime or in authoritarian elections, as long as opposition parties were allowed to participate.
• Foreign imposition (13 leaders) referred to cases in which the leader was installed by a foreign power.
• Appointment (88 leaders), the most common category, encompassed all cases in which the leader was selected by his predecessor or by a small ruling coalition.

The study authors had anonymous respondents recruited via Amazon’s MTurk rate the faces of these leaders for trustworthiness, competence, attractiveness, maturity, and masculinity on scales ranging from -7 to 7.

Results showed that participants tended to rate hereditary leaders as less trustworthy than other categories of non-democratic leaders. In other words, selected dictators—those who were either elected, appointed, or foreign-imposed—tended to look more trustworthy than monarchs. Attractiveness and competence were not associated with the mode of gaining power.

“These results suggest that authoritarian selectorates, like voters in democracies, use facial characteristics as cues to choose leaders, but value different qualities in their rulers,” the study authors concluded.

The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the psychological processes through which political leaders emerge. However, a key limitation is that the study only analyzed leaders who successfully gained power; it did not compare them to their political challengers. Therefore, it remains unknown whether they also looked more trustworthy than their challengers and whether this perceived trait is what helped them gain their leadership position.

The paper, “The right man for the job? Dictators’ selection mode and their facial characteristics,” was authored by Abel François, Sophie Panel, and Laurent Weill.