How much does physical appearance determine a person’s prospects of career advancement? It depends on the job, presumably. Fashion models are expected to be beautiful. Basketball players are expected to be tall. Company spokespeople are expected to be well-coiffed. But what about the rest of the workforce? What about jobs and occupations where physical appearance has no reasonable connection to how well the work is performed? The answer to both questions is: looks matter a great deal. Attractive people tend to make more money and move higher up the job ladder compared to unattractive people. Tall businessmen tend to enjoy more career success than short businessmen. Those who are very over-weight or under-weight are at a disadvantage. And if you’re outright ugly then … uh, well … I’ve got some really bad news for you.

Does that seem fair to you? No? Well, these findings shouldn’t be entirely unexpected. We are visual animals, after all.

I first became interested in this phenomenon while doing research on impression management. This body of literature is about how people form opinions and expectations about others based on what they can see and hear. For example, people who wear nerdy glasses, dress conservatively, and use polysyllabic words are expected to be smart. Likewise, people don’t expect a disheveled slob with scraggly hair and a pouty face to be a politician (unless your name is Boris Johnson, of course). These expectations have a lot to do with how we stereotype particular roles in society. We expect (or half-expect) these roles to be occupied by people with “a look.” Consider, for a moment, the images that come to mind when thinking about a firefighter. Or an army officer. Or an airline stewardess. Or a trial lawyer. What is a “normal” look in these professions? You probably have some sort of stereotype in mind. That stereotype primes you to expect certain things from a role.

What about the most basic aspects of appearance, such as attractiveness, body size, and body proportions? And what about jobs and occupations that have no popular archetype? Here too, appearances have a major influence on how we think about a person.

I was struck by these considerations when reading Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink (2005). Gladwell polled the Fortune-500 list of top companies in America. It turns out that 58 percent of Chief Executive Officers are men who are over six feet tall (1.83 metres), which is three inches above the average height for men. Only 14.5 percent of the general population fits that description.[1] So what accounts for the difference? It may be the case that tall people exude more confidence. If true, I doubt that’s the determining factor. Surely height has nothing to do with the substance of a CEO’s job. Yet, you’d think that these companies would be so driven by the bottom-line that they would be unswayed by such superficial attributes. That’s simply not the case. For some reason, we think of tall men as more authoritative and worthy of leadership. It’s worrisome that this happens in positions where judgement and character are of paramount importance.

Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined
by Gordon L. Patzer (American Management Association, 2008), pp. 282.

This bias in favour of physical appearance over competence is often called lookism (the science-sounding umbrella term is physical attractive­ness phenomenon). Gordon Patzer has written a new book called Looks in which he catalogues the evidence about how much influence physical attractiveness and body type have on a person’s prospects of success. Patzer claims that looks influence how well a person is treated at work, at school, at home, and many other spheres of life. Obviously, looks aren’t the only factor that determines success and status. Yet looks are far more salient than most people suspect.

I’m not going to describe all of the subjects mentioned in Patzer’s book. His book covers a wide variety of topics, some of which seem rather pedestrian. For example, it’s safe to say that physical attractiveness has a bearing on a person’s dating prospects. So I’m not going to drag you through the details of that chapter. I would like to discuss Patzer’s findings as they relate to the workplace and institutions of governance. Here is where looks have a subtle but powerful influence, even when we deliberately try to prevent looks from influencing us.

According to Patzer’s survey of the workplace, a highly qualified candidate will almost always get a job ahead of a run-of-the-mill candidate who is more attractive. Amid a pool of people who are similarly qualified, however, the attractive candidate will probably get the job. Short men and unattractive and obese women are particularly disadvantaged in such competitions. Tall, handsome men have a big advantage. There are also conformist pressures in certain professions, such as those related to law and the military, where a certain look and manner of grooming are expected. Jobs with a public profile, such as sales and service personnel, are more likely to be staffed by people who are attractive and young. According to Patzer, older workers have a difficult time staying in such jobs because they are closely tied to a company’s public image. These days, that image is likely to emphasize the ideals of youth and health, as well as pander to the racial or ethnic profiles of the most common customers. Attractive people also get higher paying jobs. Estimates of the earnings boost vary, but all of the estimated differences amount to much more than just pocket change.

All of this favouritism amplifies earlier advantages gained before entering the workplace. From the time a person is born, parents and hospital nurses will grant more attention to cuter kids. Educators have higher expectations of attractive students, and such expectations encourage achievement—a phenomenon called the Pygmalion hypothesis in a seminal study from the late 1960s by Robert Rosenthal. Patzer argues that such treatment is becoming normalized in the school system at a time when other injustices, such as bullying, are being stigmatized and eradicated.

Not every bias works to the advantage of beautiful women, according to Patzer. Female beauty is a disadvantage when applying for manual jobs, especially in male dominated occupations. Attractive women are often considered as too feminine or weak, for example. When an attractive woman reaches the upper echelons of management, they are often dismissed as lucky or unduly privileged. When an attractive woman fails, managers are more likely to perceive the cause as a lack of effort instead of bad luck. Attractive women are more likely to receive harsh punishments for misconduct compared to average looking folk, whereas attractive men are more likely to get away with relatively mild sanctions. It’s not fully understood why that is so. Perhaps it’s envy. Perhaps it’s an attempt by male supervisors to overcompensate by not appearing to favour attractive women. Perhaps it’s a huffy response to violated expectations. The research findings on the motivations are still rather fuzzy.

One of the most interesting experiments cited by Patzer relates to the way that people perceive expert presentations. A handsome actor was tasked with giving a lecture full of contradictions and double talk. While ignoring the flaws in the lecture material, the actor delivered the speech with great enthusiasm and confidence. Everyone gave high ratings to the lecture without carefully considering the merits of the content. Looks and delivery determined audience satisfaction. Of course, that is just one experiment. I would recommend that, the next time you see a motivational or inspirational speaker deliver a bombastic talk full of sweeping claims and goading, you should note the speaker’s appearance. When I think about such infomercial artists, such as Anthony Robbins, I do notice that they are taller and more attractive than the norm. These presenters use other methods of persuasion, including a practiced and beguiling oratory style. But physical attractiveness seems to be a prerequisite for that speaker circuit. I wish someone would do some research on that topic.

Patzer discusses lookism in politics too. Unfortunately, this chapter relies heavily on anecdotal discussions of famous politicians. Some of the claims are debatable (e.g., Taft was the last fat U.S. President?). And Patzer only seems to scratch the surface of the huge literature devoted to political image management. Nonetheless, there are some interesting insights here. The relationship between attractiveness and political appeal is not entirely straightforward. Extremely attractive politicians are usually seen as phony. Here the ideal is both moderate attractiveness and strong “facial dominance” (i.e. distinctive facial features that project an admirable image). Again, height helps. Charisma is a plus. Swing voters are most often swayed, as opposed to card carrying partisans. And even if a politician doesn’t score highly in the looks department, much can be done to improve the chances of electoral victory with a cosmetic makeover, the right wardrobe, and flattering camera angles. As mentioned, Patzer doesn’t delve too far into any details.

Patzer’s Looks doesn’t end there; this book is more breadth than depth. Patzer talks about how judges and juries are swayed by attractiveness and stereotypes. He rails against the popular media’s role in perpetuating certain body images and stereotypes. Big-money businesses that are peddling cosmetics and artificial youth are running amok, especially those plastic surgeons and Botox injectors who step beyond sensible safeguards with self-serving excuses. When it gets to the point where obsessive aesthetes are holding “Botox parties” (Botox parties?), chances are that the public health rules governing that brand-name botulism aren’t being observed. Anorexia, bulimia, and other unhealthy preoccupations get a chapter. Patzer’s larger theme is that modern society—American society in particular—is becoming absurdly obsessed with matters of beauty. The book contains several anecdotes about those who have experienced crises of self-esteem and botched medical procedures.

One of the challenges of writing a book on this topic is that the very subject being described—the main variable, physical attractiveness—is so hard to define with any accuracy and precision. That’s one of the reasons why scientific studies rarely look at ugliness. How do you define that? Height and weight are measurable. A few variables correlated with beauty, such as facial symmetry and other body measurements, provide a proxy of sorts. Some clever research designs have been used. But many of these studies fall short of the research ideal for understanding such a subjective preference, especially across the wide range of topics that Patzer covers. For example, I’m a bit sceptical of the two studies Patzer cites about the possible business advantages bestowed by pretty people when it comes to bargaining and relationship building. If I were an executive, I wouldn’t get my hopes up that the “beauty capital” that comes from an attractive workforce, as Patzer calls it, will pay much of a dividend.

Patzer’s discussion of underlying causes and potential remedies is a bit wishy-washy too.

In his discussion of causes, Patzer oscillates between evolutionary psychology explanations (i.e. beauty may bestow a prehistoric adaptive advantage) and cultural explanations (e.g., American culture is especially vulnerable to lookism). Arguments about evolutionary advantage need to be more than just idle speculation about the adaptive benefits of beauty, which is what Patzer’s commentary amounts to (notwithstanding a mostly unconnected discussion of fertility). Not enough attention is given to the role of culture in the broader sense. Patzer has a chapter about the history of beauty obsession in various societies. Yet, it isn’t enough to say that a scattering of male élites throughout history had an appreciation of female beauty. That’s obvious and unilluminating. As countless feminist scholars have documented, the prevailing view of beauty has varied markedly over time and region: from thin, dainty women with their feet bound grotesquely, to morbidly obese earth-mothers with large body bulges; very different standards of female beauty have prevailed here and there over the ages. Patzer’s is trying to build an argument about the universality of lookism. I think that it’s possible to do so, while acknowledging how the phenomenon plays out differently across cultures. That’s not Patzer’s train-of-thought, however, which is partly why he goes off on strange tangents, such as his discussion of the universal appeal of the Golden Ratio—a long-standing and self-reinforcing myth about the intrinsic attractiveness of a particular geometric shape and proportion.

The book’s meagre discussion of culture seems to be the main reason why Patzer’s final conclusions and recommendations are so defeatest. He argues that there isn’t much anyone can do about lookism except for a bit of activism, parental awareness campaigning, and confidence building. That’s thin gruel. It’s also a naïve view of activism. If lookism is more prominent in modern America and a few other places, then surely there are lessons to learn from those places where the problem isn’t as widespread or takes on a different form. More international comparisons within the modern era would have improved Patzer’s book.

Finally, Patzer’s book does raise a troubling question about my own work. Given that I’m an Adonis-like man who stands over six feet tall, how much of my blockbuster success can I attribute to my brilliant mind? Alas, I don’t know if I’ll ever get an entirely satisfactory answer to that question. [sigh]

Review by Peter Stoyko

Update (17.05.09)
A new study of 20,000 Australians has also found that taller people earn more. Melbourne’s The Age reports, “every five centimetres above the average height of 178 centimetres boosted a male’s wages by the equivalent of an extra year’s experience in the labour force.” (The Age, 2009) However, the study did not find discrimination against those who are overweight, unlike previous studies from elsewhere. Read story.

NOTES

[1] You can read more about Gladwell’s findings in this excerpt from the book Blink.

REFERENCES