The lack of equal representation across various industries has been well documented in recent years, and the evidence is clear that despite the evident appeal of a meritocratic world, we’re often a long way from it. Recent research from the CEPR explores how equality is, or more pertinently is not, operating in economics.
“In academics, we really want to believe that it’s all about merit,” the researchers say. “There are some papers showing that teaching evaluations are better for better-looking faculty, and you could maybe make the argument that, if you’re more attractive, students pay more attention. But for academic research, I’m just crunching data, so what does it matter what I look like?”
Career progression
The researchers examine the career progression of 752 economists who all graduated from leading doctoral programs across the United States between 2002 and 2006. The results reveal a close correlation between the physical attractiveness of the economist and their success both in terms of research and career progression.
The attractiveness of each economist was determined by a pool of a few hundred survey workers who were tasked with rating the photos of each economist. These ratings were then compared with the career outcomes of the economist over a 15-year period.
Not only were the more attractive economists more likely to study at higher-ranked Ph.D. programs but this attractiveness bias was particularly strong for women.
This bias continued upon graduation, with both attractive male and female economists able to land better first jobs than their more plain-looking peers, with this career boost enduring up to 15 years into their careers. This also translated into success in those careers, with attractive economists publishing papers that were cited more than those by their plain-looking peers.
Handsome returns
The researchers found the link between one’s attractiveness and research citations perhaps the most surprising of all. They suggest that this might be because economists commonly present their papers at conferences, which draws the connection between their physical appearance and their work. The findings highlight the implicit bias we tend to have towards attractiveness and may even provide some correlation with racial inequality too.
“The very obvious implication is that we really shouldn’t discriminate against people who are not judged to be as attractive as others,” the researchers say. “The other part of the problem is: what are the attractiveness standards in the cultural group that dominates the profession?”
Most of the panel of volunteers tasked with rating the attractiveness of the economists were white, and their rankings of attractiveness did appear to differ across the different races of the economists.
The beauty premium
Of course, this is not a phenomenon that is confined to the economics profession. Previous research has broadly shown that good-looking people tend to have an easier time of it in life. They get paid more, receive better job evaluations, and are generally more employable.
This so-called ‘beauty premium’ may not always be beneficial to us at work, however. Indeed, recent research suggests that customers may not be all that keen on engaging with beautiful staff.
The researchers recruited several hundred volunteers to explore how they respond to attractive customer service staff. The staff was shown a standard description of being served a meal in a restaurant, before being shown a picture of their waiter.
The volunteers were shown images of either a male or female waiter, with their facial features altered to make them more or less attractive. This was done using previous research on how to define beauty. What’s more, the volunteers were also ‘rated’ on that same method so the researchers could gauge whether the waiters were more or less attractive than each volunteer.
Finally, each volunteer was asked to rate the attractiveness of the waiter, and reveal how ‘psychologically close’ they felt to them, alongside their level of satisfaction with the service they received.
Attractive service
The data suggests a clear correlation between how close the ‘customer’ felt towards the waiter and the perceived quality of the service they received. This distance was most likely to be felt by those who thought the waiter was considerably better looking than them.
A second experiment then placed a few hundred more volunteers in a queue to board a flight at an airport in China. They were asked to read a scenario about receiving in-flight service from the flight attendant. As before, they were shown a picture of the attendant and asked to rate the attractiveness of the individual. They were also asked to say whether they thought there was any connection between looks and ability, before rating the service they received.
As before, those who thought themselves to be unattractive felt a significant distance between them and the more attractive flight attendants and subsequently perceived the service they received as of lower quality. This was, even so, when they suggested that there was no link between looks and ability.
This trend was replicated in a third experiment where shoppers in a mall were quizzed as to the face-to-face encounters they had just had with a customer service representative. There appears to be a clear link between the looks of an employee, our own looks, and the perception of the service we receive.
The results suggest that hiring beautiful people may not be the easy win that we think it is, and may even come with a considerable downside.
Going against the grain
Similarly, beauty may work against us if it feeds into stereotypes that harm our prospects at work. This was highlighted by a recent study from the University of Colorado at Boulder, which explored the impact attractiveness had on our perceived abilities at work, with a particular focus on female attractiveness in stereotypically male and female roles.
The research found that when attractive women applied for roles that traditionally were filled by men, they tended to be negatively affected, with a perception that beautiful women are inherently unqualified for such jobs.
It’s a phenomenon the researchers refer to as the ‘beauty is beastly’ effect, and describes how attractive women can often be at a disadvantage when applying for traditionally male roles where looks are irrelevant.
The researchers utilized a decoy applicant to test their theory. They manipulated a number of attractive candidates who were applying for traditionally masculine jobs. The data clearly showed that when an unattractive decoy was part of the candidate pool, the attractive candidate was universally relegated.
When the decoy candidate was also attractive, however, this bias was reduced. While this phenomenon primarily occurred in traditionally male jobs, it was also evident in more gender-neutral jobs, albeit to a lesser amount.
The authors speculate that this phenomenon occurs because we have certain expectations for people based upon their appearances. This results in hiring managers evaluating and selecting based upon this, with a preference for unattractive candidates. While this is perhaps not a new finding, the researchers believe their work does nonetheless show that it’s perhaps more prevalent than we previously thought.
They urge training to be offered to hiring managers to make them aware of the beauty is beastly effect, and to help them look past attractiveness when assessing the suitability of candidates for any position. How we tackle this problem in the wider public, however, is another matter.
