Is There Really a Beauty Premium or an Ugliness Penalty on Earnings?

Abstract

Purpose

Economists have widely documented the “beauty premium” and “ugliness penalty” on earnings. Explanations based on employer and client discrimination would predict a monotonic association between physical attractiveness and earnings; explanations based on occupational self-selection would explain the beauty premium as a function of workers’ occupations; and explanations based on individual differences would predict that the beauty premium would disappear once appropriate individual differences are controlled. In this paper, we empirically tested the three competing hypotheses about the “beauty premium”.

Design/Methodology/Approach

We analyzed a nationally representative and prospectively longitudinal sample from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health).

Findings

The results contradicted the discrimination and self-selection explanations and strongly supported the individual differences explanation. Very unattractive respondents always earned significantly more than unattractive respondents, sometimes more than average-looking or attractive respondents. Multiple regression analyses showed that there was very weak evidence for the beauty premium, and it disappeared completely once individual differences, such as health, intelligence, and Big Five personality factors, were statistically controlled.

Implications

Past findings of beauty premium and ugliness penalty may possibly be due to the fact that: 1) “very unattractive” and “unattractive” categories are usually collapsed into “below average” category; and 2) health, intelligence (as opposed to education) and Big Five personality factors are not controlled. It appears that more beautiful workers earn more, not because they are beautiful, but because they are healthier, more intelligent, and have better (more Conscientious and Extraverted, and less Neurotic) personality.

Originality/Value

This is the first study to show that: 1) very unattractive workers have extremely high earnings and earn more than physically more attractive workers, suggesting evidence for the potential ugliness premium; and 2) the apparent beauty premium and ugliness penalty may be a function of unmeasured traits correlated with physical attractiveness, such as health, intelligence, and personality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Eisa, E., Egan, D., & Wassersub, R. (2004). Fluctuating asymmetry and low back pain. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailit, H. L., Workman, P. L., Niswander, J. D., & Maclean, J. C. (1970). Dental asymmetry as an indicator of genetic and environmental conditions in human populations. Human Biology, 42, 626–638.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Batty, G. D., Deary, I. J., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Premorbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology, 17, 278–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernstein, I. H., Lin, T.-D., & McClellan, P. (1982). Cross- vs. within-racial judgments of attractiveness. Perception and Psychophysics, 32, 495–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Biddle, J. E., & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). Beauty, productivity, and discrimination: lawyers’ looks and lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 172–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Case, A., & Paxson, C. (2008). Stature and status: height, ability, and labor market outcomes. Journal of Political Economy, 116, 499–532.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: a third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cross, J. F., & Cross, J. (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Developmental Psychology, 5, 433–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C.-H. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2015). Does beauty matter in undergraduate education? Economic Inquiry, 53, 940–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Beauty vs. brains: early labor market outcomes of high school graduates. Economics Letters, 105, 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E., & Russell, J. (1991). Attractiveness and income for men and women in management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1039–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gao, W., & Smyth, R. (2010). Health human capital, height and wages in China. Journal of Development Studies, 46, 466–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gottfredson, L. S., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamermesh, D. S. (2011). Beauty pays: why attractive people are more successful. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and labor market. American Economic Review, 84, 1174–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harper, B. (2000). Beauty, stature and the labour market: a British cohort study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 62, 771–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Henderson, J. J. A., & Anglin, J. M. (2003). Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 351–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hönekopp, J., Bartholomé, T., & Jansen, G. (2004). Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and physical fitness in young women. Human Nature, 15, 147–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jensen, A. R., & Sinha, S. N. (1993). Physical correlates of human intelligence. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Biological approaches to the study of human intelligence (pp. 139–242). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jeronimus, B. F., Ormel, J., Aleman, A., Penninx, B. W. J. H., & Riese, H. (2013). Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism. Psychological Medicine, 43, 2403–2415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jeronimus, B. F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., & Ormel, J. (2014). Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 751–764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones, D. (1996). Physical attractiveness and the theory of sexual selection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of physical attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature, 4, 271–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 742–755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kanazawa, S. (2010). Evolutionary psychology and intelligence research. American Psychologist, 65, 279–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kanazawa, S. (2011a). Intelligence and physical attractiveness. Intelligence, 39, 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kanazawa, S. (2011b). Evolutionary psychology and individual differences. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The handbook of individual differences (pp. 353–376). Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kanazawa, S., & Kovar, J. L. (2004). Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence, 32, 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kanazawa, S., & Reyniers, D. J. (2009). The role of height in the sex difference in intelligence. American Journal of Psychology, 122, 527–536.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty?: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lewis, D. M. G. (2015). Evolved individual differences: advancing a condition-dependent model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Maret, S. M., & Harling, C. A. (1985). Cross-cultural perceptions of physical attractiveness: ratings of photographs of whites by Cruzans and Americans. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 163–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mobius, M. M., & Rosenblat, T. S. (2006). Why beauty matters. American Economic Review, 96, 222–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Morse, S. J., & Gruzen, J. (1976). The eye of the beholder: a neglected variable in the study of physical attractiveness? Journal of Personality, 44, 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively associated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Parsons, P. A. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry: an epigenetic measure of stress. Biological Review, 65, 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parsons, P. A. (1992). Fluctuating asymmetry: a biological monitor of environmental and genomic stress. Heredity, 68, 361–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Persico, N., Postlewaite, A., & Silverman, D. (2004). The effect of adolescent experience on labor market outcomes: the case of height. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 1019–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Thakerar, J. N., & Iwawaki, S. (1979). Cross-cultural comparisons in interpersonal attraction of females toward males. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 121–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Thornhill, R., & Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews, 72, 497–548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wagatsuma, E., & Kleinke, C. L. (1979). Ratings of facial beauty by Asian-American and Caucasian females. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 299–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Tatyana Deryugina, Jason M. Fletcher, Adrian Furnham, Daniel S. Hamermesh, Andrew J. Oswald, Arthur Sakamoto, David Strang, Felix Thoemmes, two anonymous reviewers, and Associate Editor Eric D. Heggestad for their comments on earlier drafts. See Add Health acknowledgments at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/faqs/addhealth/index.html#what-acknowledgment-should-be.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satoshi Kanazawa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kanazawa, S., Still, M.C. Is There Really a Beauty Premium or an Ugliness Penalty on Earnings?. J Bus Psychol 33, 249–262 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9489-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Physical attractiveness
  • Earnings
  • Discrimination
  • Occupational self-selection
  • Individual differences
  • Productivity