According to a study done by a political scientist and a biologist, the voices of the candidates probably, at least subconsciously, influence your vote.

Political scientist Casey Klofstad and biologist Rindy Anderson find that it appears that we are biased when it comes to the certain types of voices.

This podcast used an analogy that made perfect sense to me: the bark of a dog. When we hear a "yap, yap" of a bark, we associate that with a tiny, (almost) harmless dog, at the bottom of the pecking order, so-to-speak. Yet, when we hear the deep "woof, woof" of a bark, we associate that with a larger, more powerful dog who might just tear your flesh off if it gets the chance.

In the same vein, when we hear a higher-pitched voice of a candidate, especially female candidates, humans (subconsciously) put that candidate on a lower plane in the scheme of a pecking order. Politics aside (for those who do not vote along party lines and those who have not done research into their candidate's platform), according to this study, a candidate's voice might just help (or hurt, for that matter) their chance of being elected!

(Hidden Brain/NPR)