Voters prefer female voices
No matter how much we like to convince ourselves otherwise, human choice is subject to outside influences — intentional and unintentional, consciously and subconsciously biased, and instinctive. To fight such influence, or at least elevate the thought process above it, we must first become aware.
Rarely is such an awareness more important than at election time. We voters have proved ourselves too easily swayed by buzz words, showmanship, and pandering to passions — form over substance. As if that weren’t enough, science is showing us we are also influenced by something very simple: sound.
More specifically, gender-sound.
The irony is that candidates and ad designers are influenced too, only they use it backward. Men’s voices dominate TV political ads, but voters find women’s more credible.
In election year 2012, social and political behavior scientists at the University of Albany began multi-phase research into how male and female Congressional candidates handled their campaign ads — the sources cited, setting and themes (e.g., using police, cute kids, their families, etc.), and technical decisions. As reported by ScienceNews.org, they concluded there really weren’t gender-related differences, with one exception: Narration.
Analyzing thousands of political ads archived by the Wesleyan Media Project, and data from more than 80,000 viewers of those ads, they found clear gender differences in voiceovers. Results published in 2015 in the journal Political Communication revealed stereotypes associated with specific issues.
Rather amusing (or worrisome) is the fact that while female and male candidates used far more male narrators on the whole (voiceovers were 2-to-1 male), respondents tended to believe female narrators more.
We like to think society has learned better than to stereotype issues that are important for everyone, but data prove otherwise; researchers found strong stereotypical connections between men’s “assertiveness” and women’s “compassion” and issues associated with those qualities. For example, candidate ads addressing “feminine” issues such as education, child care, and reproductive rights were presented more often by women narrators, while ads addressing “masculine” areas of foreign policy, defense, and the economy were narrated mostly by men. Neutral ads were also more often narrated by men.
Contrary to the scientists’ expectations, while most ads were still narrated by men overall, Republican candidates were somewhat more likely to use female narrators than were Democrats. Candidates of both major parties also tended to use more women narrators for negative ads, perhaps to seem softer while attacking. And male candidates were slightly more likely to use female narrators than were female candidates; perhaps in an effort to balance themselves.
It didn’t work well. Respondents were more swayed by ads with female voices both when the issue was feminine, and when it was considered neutral. Male voices were only more effective than were female when the issue was considered strongly masculine.
Research aside, we voters must become more vigilant in thought-policing ourselves. Look past the imagery, think beyond the buzz words and soothing or booming voices, the attractive looks, or heart-tugging expressions. Consider our own biases and influences — do voices matter? Is emotional music and popular verbiage what’s important? What strategies are being used to influence, what hot buttons inside us are being pushed — what biases in us subconsciously look for that influence?
Better yet, to reduce bias, voters should avoid video and TV imagery when the goal is anything but entertainment. For an informed vote, reading secures more substantial and relevant, neutrally presented information from reliable news sources (no medium presents more on state and local races than a newspaper), and for national races, more than one source. The results are too far-reaching to do anything less.
Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at Sholeh@cdapress.com.