Looking competent matters for electoral success, but its appeal varies by social class, according to research published in Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin.
The way politicians look can influence voting decisions. Prior studies have shown that voters tend to favor candidates who appear competent, even when they lack other information about them. This phenomenon has been observed across various electoral contexts and has been linked to actual election outcomes. But do all voters rely on this visual cue equally?
Fabienne Unkelbach and colleagues investigated whether social class plays a role in how much voters prioritize competence in politicians. They hypothesized that individuals from higher socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds would value competence more because it aligns with their self-perception. High-status individuals often see themselves as more competent, and research suggests that people tend to evaluate others based on traits they consider central to their own identity.
The first study surveyed a representative German sample of 2,239 participants, asking them to rate the importance of various traits in politicians, including competence, assertiveness, warmth, and trustworthiness. Participants also assessed their own competence. SES was measured through household income and education level, while Subjective Social Status (SSS) was assessed using the MacArthur Scale, where participants ranked themselves on a 10-rung visual ladder based on perceived social standing.
In Studies 2a and 2b (N = 396), participants viewed ten portraits of unknown male politicians, sourced from the Swiss National Parliament’s website to ensure consistent portrait style. The politicians were preselected based on competence and warmth ratings from an independent pretest, where 80 participants rated subsets of portraits on an 11-point scale. Each participant saw a randomized mix of high- and low-competence politicians and rated their likelihood of voting for them on an 11-point scale. Afterward, they rated each politician’s warmth and competence. SES and SSS were measured at the end of the study. A key difference was that participants were not explicitly told to evaluate competence, allowing the researchers to assess whether it naturally influenced voting decisions. Of note is that Study 2a had an error in image selection, leading to Study 2b, which corrected the imbalance by including an equal number of high- and low-competence politicians.
Study 3 refined this method by expanding the number of politicians from 10 to 32, covering a broader range of perceived competence levels instead of a simple high vs. low classification. Unlike Study 2, where competence and warmth ratings preceded voting decisions, Study 3 measured voting likelihood first to prevent prior trait evaluations from influencing choices. Additionally, dominance was introduced as a control variable. A separate group of 400 participants rated the same politicians on competence, warmth, and dominance, allowing the researchers to rule out dominance as a confounding factor. SES and SSS were again measured at the end.
Findings from Study 1 supported the hypothesis that higher-SES individuals place greater importance on competence in politicians. Not only did they explicitly rate competence as more crucial, but they also perceived themselves as more competent. This self-perception fully mediated the relationship between SES and the importance placed on competence, suggesting that high-SES individuals value competence because they see it as central to their identity. However, SSS did not show the same pattern: while those with higher SSS also rated competence as important, they tended to rate all desirable traits higher, suggesting a general response bias rather than a specific preference for competence.
The results of Studies 2a, 2b, and 3 confirmed that social class influences voting preferences even when competence is not explicitly mentioned. Across all studies, participants preferred competent-looking politicians, replicating prior research on facial competence effects. However, this effect was significantly stronger among high-SES voters. Even when controlling for political orientation, warmth, and dominance, competence remained a decisive factor for high-SES participants but was less influential for lower-SES voters. In contrast, SSS did not moderate the effect of competence on voting likelihood, reinforcing the conclusion that objective SES, rather than perceived social standing, determines how much voters rely on competence in decision-making.
A mini meta-analysis of the three experimental studies confirmed that competence had a systematically stronger effect on voting likelihood for high-SES participants, providing robust evidence for the role of social class in shaping political preferences.
All politician images used in the studies featured White men, meaning the findings may not necessarily apply to female or non-White candidates. As well, given the study was conducted in Germany, where economic inequality is lower than in the United States, the effects might be even more pronounced in countries with greater economic disparities.
Overall, these findings suggest that the importance of politicians’ competence is not universal but varies depending on voters’ social class.
The research, “Looking Competent Does Not Appeal to All Voters Equally: The Role of Social Class and Politicians’ Facial Appearance for Voting Likelihood,” was authored by Fabienne Unkelbach, Tatjana Brütting, Nina Schilling, and Michaela Wänke.
