Banner
    Why Do Female Republican House Members Look More Like Women?
    By News Staff | September 27th 2012 06:30 PM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    The more conservative a female House of Representatives lawmaker is, the more likely she is to look like a woman, according to a UCLA analysis.

    Heteronormative gender bias, right? Stupid GOP likes 1950s stereotypes.

    Maybe. The GOP wears ties too, and it's hard to know if President Obama even owns one. The UCLA psychologists were somewhat sure they could tell a book by its cover, and so they did.  They also found the opposite to be true: Female politicians with less feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the more mannish they looked.

    They declared the relationship so strong that politically uninformed undergraduates were able to determine the political affiliation of the representatives with an overall accuracy rate that exceeded chance, and the accuracy of those predications increased in direct relation to the lawmaker's proximity to feminine norms. The work was inspired by prior research which said that Americans have a better-than-chance ability to determine whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican on the basis of appearance alone. The mechanism behind these judgments, however, is unknown.

    In addition, the findings contribute to a growing body of evidence that suggest that voters may use shortcuts in forming impressions of political candidates.

    Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology, and Kerri Johnson, assistant professor of communication studies and psychology, focused on the House of Representatives because the body was large enough to yield statistically valid results and its members would not be as easily recognized by study subjects as members of more high-profile political bodies, such as the U.S. Senate. 

    They started the project by feeding portraits of 434 members of the 111th House of Representatives into a computer modeling program used by researchers in their field. Loaded with a database of hundreds of scans of faces of men and women, the FaceGen Modeler allows researchers to measure how much the details of any one face approach the average for either gender.

    The model compared each representative's face to the norm on more than 100 subtle dimensions, including the shape of the jaw, the location of eyebrows, the placement of cheek bones, the shape of eyes, the contour of the forehead, the fullness of the lips and the distance between such features as the bottom of the nose and the top of the lip. Armed with these dimensions, the researchers were able to arrive at an amalgamated score assessing the extent to which the face exhibited characteristics common to men or to women. Theoretical values ranged from -40 (highly male-typed) to +40 (highly female-typed).

    "We weren't looking at hairstyle, jewelry or whether a person was wearing make up or not," Carpinella said. "We wanted to get an objective measure of how masculine or feminine a face is, based on a scientifically derived average for male or female appearance."

    In addition to party affiliation, the researchers took into account each politician's DW–NOMINATE score, a scale developed by political scientists that uses voting records to determine how conservative or liberal a lawmaker is.

    Because the GOP is more frequently associated with policies that uphold traditional sex roles, the researchers expected to find that Republican representatives of both sexes would have more sex-typical faces than their counterparts across the aisle. The theory, however, did not hold for male politicians. In a finding that the researchers do not view as a particularly revealing, the faces of male Republicans, on average, scored as less masculine than the faces of their Democratic counterparts.

    "It may be unnecessary for Republican men to exhibit masculinity through their appearance," Carpinella said. "Their policy advocacy and leadership roles may already confer these characteristics on them."

    But a telling difference emerged among female politicians. The faces of Republican women rated, on average, twice as sex-typical — or feminine — as those of Democratic women. And among conservative lawmakers of both genders, women were 13 points more feminine on average than men were masculine. Among more liberal politicians, women were five points more feminine than men were masculine.

    "The difference is highly pronounced for the conservatives but is less pronounced for the liberals," Johnson said.

    Researchers then showed 120 undergraduates photos of the 434 politicians and asked them to guess the lawmaker's political party. When the undergraduates guessed that a politician was Republican, their judgments were 98 percent more likely to be accurate for women with the highest rankings for femininity; the accuracy of their judgments increased the more feminine the politician's face. When the undergraduates guessed that a politician was Democrat, their judgments were 58 percent less likely to be accurate for more feminine-looking women, and the accuracy of their judgments decreased the more feminine the politician's face.

    Among Republican representatives whose features ranked as highly feminine were Kay Granger (Texas–District 12), Cathy Rodgers McMorris (Washington–District 5) and Michele Bachmann (Minnesota–District 6).

    Among Democratic representatives whose features ranked as less gender-typical were Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (formerly at-large representative for South Dakota), Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut–District 3) and Anna G. Eshoo (California–District 14).

    Additional research is required to understand the roots of the GOP's more feminine face when compared with the Democratic Party, but the researchers believe that branding plays a role.

    "The Democratic Party is associated with social liberal policies that aim to diminish gender disparities, whereas the Republican Party is associated with socially conservative policy issues that tend to bolster traditional sex roles," Johnson said. "These policy platforms are manifest in each party's image — apparently also in the physical characteristics exhibited by politicians."

    Party leadership may play a role in promoting and electing candidates who display physical characteristics that reflect party values, but research is needed to determine whether this is the case and to understand the means being employed, the researchers said.

    Whatever their origins, expectations of displays of femininity can be problematic for female professionals because past research has demonstrated that people tend to view women as either competent or feminine — not both.

    "We suspect that conservative constituents demand that their politicians be not just competent but also gender-typical, especially among women," Johnson said. "As a result, we think these women may find themselves in a double bind."

    The research is part of a burgeoning new field in the social sciences called "social vision," which is dedicated to understanding how others are perceived based on subtle visual cues. The field has implications for prejudice-formation and understanding stereotyping, as well as for generally understanding human experience. Johnson's past research has looked at subtle cues in body type and motion that serve as cues to sexual orientation.

    The researchers next plan to look at how the gendered nature of a politician's appearance may relate to the judgments of political competence and to real-world political success once elected to office.

    "With the increasing emphasis on television and Internet video as a source of political news, a candidate's physical appearance is an important part of politics, especially political campaigns," Johnson said. "A considerable portion of the electorate may not be well-informed, and they may be making decisions based on subtle cues that need to be revealed and understood."


    Published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    Wow ... is this article ever begging for a punch line ...
    randallmayes
    When a party selects Rob Blagojevich and Barney Frank to represent them, it should not be suprising if the female counterparts have faces like a box of frogs. Perhaps democrats have a more highly evolved sense of humor.
    Randall Mayes
    Gerhard Adam
    Perhaps democrats have a more highly evolved sense of humor.
    That's given, since they have to work with Republicans.
    Hank
    This was in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, so it must be accurate.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    rholley
    The following, from G.K.Chesterton, is apt:



    THE COSMIC STEW-POT

    There has crept into our thoughts, through a thousand small openings, a curious and unnatural idea. I mean the idea that unity is itself a good thing; that there is something high and spiritual about things being blended and absorbed into each other. That all rivers should run into one river, that all vegetables should go into one pot — that is spoken of as the last and best fulfilment of being. Boys are to be ‘at one’ with girls; … all sects are to be ‘at one’ in the New Theology; beasts fade into men and men fade into God; union in itself is a noble thing. Now union in itself is not a noble thing. Love is a noble thing; but love is not union. Nay, it is rather a vivid sense of separation and identity. Maudlin, inferior love poetry does, indeed, talk of lovers being ‘one soul’ just as maudlin, inferior religious poetry talks of being lost in God; but the best poetry does not. When Dante meets Beatrice, he feels his distance from her, not his proximity; and all the greatest saints have felt their lowness, not their highness, in the moment of ecstasy. And what is true of these grave and heroic matters (I do not say, of course, that saints and lovers have never used the language of union too, true enough in its own place and proper limitation of meaning) — what is true of these is equally true of all the lighter and less essential forms of appreciation or surprise. Division and variety are essential to praise; division and variety are what is right with the world. There is nothing specially right about mere contact and coalescence. …

    In short, this vast, vague idea of unity is the one ‘reactionary’ thing in the world. It is perhaps the only connection in which that foolish word ‘reactionary’ can be used with significance and truth. For this blending of men and women, nations and nations, is truly a return to the chaos and unconsciousness that were before the world was made. There is, of course, another kind of unity of which I do not speak here: unity in the possession of truth and the perception of the need for these varieties. But the varieties themselves; the reflection of man and woman in each other, as in two distinct mirrors; the wonder of man at nature as a strange thing at once above and below him; the quaint and solitary kingdom of childhood; the local affections and the colour of certain landscapes — these actually are the things that are the grace and honour of the earth; these are the things that make life worth living and the whole framework of things well worthy to be sustained. And the best thing remains; that this view, whether conscious or not, always has been and still is the view of the living and labouring millions. While a few prigs on platforms are talking about ‘oneness’ and absorption in ‘The All’, the folk that dwell in all the valleys of this ancient earth are renewing the varieties for ever. With them a woman is loved for being unmanly, and a man loved for being unwomanly. With them the church and the home are both beautiful, because they are both different; with them fields are personal and flags are sacred; they are the virtue of existence, for they are not mankind but man.

    T. P.’s Weekly, Christmas Number, 1910

    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    How in the hell did they tell before demo's and repubs came along ? Inquiring minds want to know...

    I was struck by the odd similarities in Janet Napolitano's, Elena Kagan's, and Janet Reno's faces?