Page 316 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

12. PHYSICALLY UNATTRACTIVE BIAS
283
reject those who do not conform to these norms (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986;
Jackson, 1992). More surprising is the research showing that the physically
attractive appear to have advantages over the less attractive in the world
of work. For example, research has shown that attractiveness is related to
general occupational success (Langlois et al., 2000) and to biases in selec­
tion, appraisal, and promotion judgments (e.g., Hosoda, Stone-Romero, &
Stone, 2003; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992).
The Relationship of Physical Attractiveness to Occupational Success
In their meta-analysis, Langlois et al. (2000) calculated an average weighted
effect size (d) of .76 (p < .05) that showed that attractive persons were more
successful than unattractive persons. This was the largest effect found for
adults with the only larger effect found for popularity ratings of children
(d = .77). It is instructive to examine in more detail two of the studies in the
Langlois et al. (2000) meta-analysis that examined physical attractiveness
as a predictor of career success. In a survey of 3,692 persons, Umberson and
Hughes (1987) found that ratings of attractiveness were positively related
to education, occupational status, and life satisfaction. Roszell, Kennedy,
and Grabb (1989) examined the relationship of attractiveness to income
attainment for 1,062 Canadians. In the 1979 wave of interviews, the physi­
cal attractiveness of the respondents was measured on a 5-point scale that
ranged from "strikingly handsome or beautiful," to "homely." A statisti­
cally significant effect of physical attractiveness was found in which annual
1981 income increased by $1,046 for every unit increase in attractiveness
rating. This effect held even after controlling for income in 1979, the gen­
der composition of the job, and gender of the respondent. The effect was
moderated, however, by both age and sex. Attractiveness had more of an
effect in the evaluation of men than women, and for those above the age
of 30 than for those below the age of 30. The authors speculate from these
results that "individuals for whom attractiveness is a commonly occur­
ring attribute (women, those in female-dominated jobs, and the young)
receive little direct economic return from the attribute. However, among
those where attractiveness is a more scarce resource, its 'market value' was
more readily apparent and more directly realized" (p. 558).
In a study not included in the Langlois et al. (2000) meta-analysis, Frieze,
Olson, and Russell (1991) asked a group of people with corporate manage­
ment experience to rate on a 5-point scale the physical attractiveness of 737
MBA graduates who graduated between 1973 and 1982. Starting salaries
of the graduates were regressed on facial attractiveness, which was found
to predict a man's but not a woman's starting salary. When 1983 salaries