Influence of physical attractiveness and gender when making decisions about
employability
Abstract:
This study was conducted to replicate conclusions of prior literature using participants who
were not employers actively looking for employees. The aim was to examine whether people
are influenced by physical attractiveness and/or gender when making decisions regarding
employability. A sample of 1000 participants data was studied, 500 men and 500 women
aged between 18 and 81. A 2x2 between-subjects design was used to collect self-reported
data (via a questionnaire) in four conditions, the between-participant factors were gender
and attractiveness, and the dependent variable was employability. It was found that on
average more attractive women were significantly more employable than less attractive
women and all men. It was also found that more attractive people were more employable
regardless of gender, but attractiveness has a greater impact on women than it does on
men.
Introduction:
Bias towards those who are deemed more physically attractive can have significant effects
on multiple aspects of modern life, including potentially employability. The “Halo Effect” can
lead to more physically attractive individuals being perceived as ‘better’ than they are and
makes people more willing to overlook their negative qualities. There is plenty of literature on
the “Halo effect” including its influence on people’s perceived employability as well as
correlations between individuals’ physical attractiveness and employment.
So, what can research tell us about the effect of physical attractiveness on employment, and
what about differences between males and females? One study conducted by Ruffle &
Shtudiner (2015) titled “Are good looking people more employable?”, sent over 5000 CVs to
multiple job openings; some had photos of more or less attractive men and women, whilst
others had no photos attached. They found that the times employers reached out to more
attractive men were significantly higher than to men with no photo or less attractive men. On
the other hand, women did not receive the same bias as the female CVs with no photo
attached had significantly higher amounts of employer interest than female CVs with more
attractive or less attractive photos attached. After further research into why more attractive
women were found to be less employable, Ruffle & Shtudiner (2015) explained that female
jealousy and envy were the most likely reasons. There is a significant limitation to this study
as multiple job openings were used meaning there may have been influence on employers’
decisions based on how fit for the role, they deemed each CV without even thinking about
attractiveness.
Another study by Busetta et al. (2020) entitled “The impact of attractiveness on job
opportunities in Italy: a gender field experiment” was performed similarly to the previous
study. They sent over 9000 fictitious CVs to job openings across Italy. Unlike in Ruffle &
Shtudiner’s (2015) study they made sure that each CV was a perfect match for the job, the
only variable being whether they had a photo attached, and whether that photo was of a
more or less attractive male or female. They made other extensive efforts to maintain validity
in this study; they modified images of real people, they used all Caucasian people to
eliminate racial bias, used the most common names for the nationality of each CV, and
surveyed each photo to identify which were considered attractive by the majority and vice
versa. They found that overall, more attractive individuals receive significantly higher interest
from employers than less attractive individuals. They also found that, “attractiveness is
quantitatively more important for women than for men” (Busetta et al., 2020) as attractive
women had received significantly more interest from employers than less attractive women
, or CVs from women with no photograph attached. This directly contradicts conclusions
suggested by Ruffle & Shtudiner (2015).
Luxen & Van De Vijver (2006) study looked more into the gender impact of the question.
They aimed to use an evolutionary perspective to discover sex related differences in the
influence of attractiveness on employers’ interest in candidates. They found that evolved
preferences such as mate selection and intrasexual competition related to gender and
attractiveness influence on employers’ decisions. This is as employers had preference for
“attractive opposite-sex applicants (mate selection)” and “women preferred female applicants
with low attractiveness over female applicants with high attractiveness (intrasexual
competition).” (Luxen & Van De Vijver, 2006). This study then can act as evidence to support
conclusions made by Ruffle & Shtudiner (2015) that less attractive women are deemed more
employable than more attractive women; it also supports conclusions made by Busetta et al.
(2020) that attractiveness is “quantitively” more important for women than men when it
comes to employment.
From these studies it is clear that more attractive people are more employable, but this can
change based on the gender of both the employee and employer. This is all theoretical
however, the individuals on the CVs being sent out in these studies did not exist. There is
however a way to support the conclusions drawn by these studies with real-world evidence
and that is to look at the socioeconomic status of more and less attractive men and women.
This is what Kukkonen et al. (2023) did in a systematic review of 58 articles which looked
into the socioeconomic outcome of individuals. They found that “in general, more attractive
individuals are socioeconomically favoured, which is true for both men and women.”
(Kukkonen et al., 2023). Another finding was that there is an equal number of studies
claiming that attractiveness is more important for women as there is claiming that it is more
important for men. Finally, they found that socioeconomic outcomes for men were consistent
more often than not, whereas women were more inconsistent, and they could be rewarded
or punished for being attractive. These findings reflect the studies described so far as show
that contextual factors can create a differing outcome for women, and that overall level of
attractiveness is more important for women than men (whether it be that they are more or
less attractive).
This study has therefore been designed with a straightforward aim in mind: to examine
whether people are influenced by physical attractiveness and/or gender when making
decisions regarding employability. The emphasis with this aim being on people, the
participants will not be actual employers. Prior literature has primarily focused on employers’
perception of employability, no research has identified the average person’s perception of
how employable an individual is for a role based on gender and attractiveness. Based on the
conclusions drawn by prior research there are two hypotheses for this study: more attractive
people will be seen as more employable than less attractive people regardless of gender,
and attractiveness will have a greater impact on employability for females than males.
Method:
Design – This study has been conducted using a 2 x 2 between-subjects design. The
between participant factors are the image attractiveness (high or low) and the image gender
(male or female). The dependent variable is employability score.
Participants – There were a total of 2744 participants. After removal of impossible values this
total was reduced to 2593. They were stratified according to condition and gender resulting
in a sample of 1000 participants. Participants were recruited using volunteer sampling, and
employability
Abstract:
This study was conducted to replicate conclusions of prior literature using participants who
were not employers actively looking for employees. The aim was to examine whether people
are influenced by physical attractiveness and/or gender when making decisions regarding
employability. A sample of 1000 participants data was studied, 500 men and 500 women
aged between 18 and 81. A 2x2 between-subjects design was used to collect self-reported
data (via a questionnaire) in four conditions, the between-participant factors were gender
and attractiveness, and the dependent variable was employability. It was found that on
average more attractive women were significantly more employable than less attractive
women and all men. It was also found that more attractive people were more employable
regardless of gender, but attractiveness has a greater impact on women than it does on
men.
Introduction:
Bias towards those who are deemed more physically attractive can have significant effects
on multiple aspects of modern life, including potentially employability. The “Halo Effect” can
lead to more physically attractive individuals being perceived as ‘better’ than they are and
makes people more willing to overlook their negative qualities. There is plenty of literature on
the “Halo effect” including its influence on people’s perceived employability as well as
correlations between individuals’ physical attractiveness and employment.
So, what can research tell us about the effect of physical attractiveness on employment, and
what about differences between males and females? One study conducted by Ruffle &
Shtudiner (2015) titled “Are good looking people more employable?”, sent over 5000 CVs to
multiple job openings; some had photos of more or less attractive men and women, whilst
others had no photos attached. They found that the times employers reached out to more
attractive men were significantly higher than to men with no photo or less attractive men. On
the other hand, women did not receive the same bias as the female CVs with no photo
attached had significantly higher amounts of employer interest than female CVs with more
attractive or less attractive photos attached. After further research into why more attractive
women were found to be less employable, Ruffle & Shtudiner (2015) explained that female
jealousy and envy were the most likely reasons. There is a significant limitation to this study
as multiple job openings were used meaning there may have been influence on employers’
decisions based on how fit for the role, they deemed each CV without even thinking about
attractiveness.
Another study by Busetta et al. (2020) entitled “The impact of attractiveness on job
opportunities in Italy: a gender field experiment” was performed similarly to the previous
study. They sent over 9000 fictitious CVs to job openings across Italy. Unlike in Ruffle &
Shtudiner’s (2015) study they made sure that each CV was a perfect match for the job, the
only variable being whether they had a photo attached, and whether that photo was of a
more or less attractive male or female. They made other extensive efforts to maintain validity
in this study; they modified images of real people, they used all Caucasian people to
eliminate racial bias, used the most common names for the nationality of each CV, and
surveyed each photo to identify which were considered attractive by the majority and vice
versa. They found that overall, more attractive individuals receive significantly higher interest
from employers than less attractive individuals. They also found that, “attractiveness is
quantitatively more important for women than for men” (Busetta et al., 2020) as attractive
women had received significantly more interest from employers than less attractive women
, or CVs from women with no photograph attached. This directly contradicts conclusions
suggested by Ruffle & Shtudiner (2015).
Luxen & Van De Vijver (2006) study looked more into the gender impact of the question.
They aimed to use an evolutionary perspective to discover sex related differences in the
influence of attractiveness on employers’ interest in candidates. They found that evolved
preferences such as mate selection and intrasexual competition related to gender and
attractiveness influence on employers’ decisions. This is as employers had preference for
“attractive opposite-sex applicants (mate selection)” and “women preferred female applicants
with low attractiveness over female applicants with high attractiveness (intrasexual
competition).” (Luxen & Van De Vijver, 2006). This study then can act as evidence to support
conclusions made by Ruffle & Shtudiner (2015) that less attractive women are deemed more
employable than more attractive women; it also supports conclusions made by Busetta et al.
(2020) that attractiveness is “quantitively” more important for women than men when it
comes to employment.
From these studies it is clear that more attractive people are more employable, but this can
change based on the gender of both the employee and employer. This is all theoretical
however, the individuals on the CVs being sent out in these studies did not exist. There is
however a way to support the conclusions drawn by these studies with real-world evidence
and that is to look at the socioeconomic status of more and less attractive men and women.
This is what Kukkonen et al. (2023) did in a systematic review of 58 articles which looked
into the socioeconomic outcome of individuals. They found that “in general, more attractive
individuals are socioeconomically favoured, which is true for both men and women.”
(Kukkonen et al., 2023). Another finding was that there is an equal number of studies
claiming that attractiveness is more important for women as there is claiming that it is more
important for men. Finally, they found that socioeconomic outcomes for men were consistent
more often than not, whereas women were more inconsistent, and they could be rewarded
or punished for being attractive. These findings reflect the studies described so far as show
that contextual factors can create a differing outcome for women, and that overall level of
attractiveness is more important for women than men (whether it be that they are more or
less attractive).
This study has therefore been designed with a straightforward aim in mind: to examine
whether people are influenced by physical attractiveness and/or gender when making
decisions regarding employability. The emphasis with this aim being on people, the
participants will not be actual employers. Prior literature has primarily focused on employers’
perception of employability, no research has identified the average person’s perception of
how employable an individual is for a role based on gender and attractiveness. Based on the
conclusions drawn by prior research there are two hypotheses for this study: more attractive
people will be seen as more employable than less attractive people regardless of gender,
and attractiveness will have a greater impact on employability for females than males.
Method:
Design – This study has been conducted using a 2 x 2 between-subjects design. The
between participant factors are the image attractiveness (high or low) and the image gender
(male or female). The dependent variable is employability score.
Participants – There were a total of 2744 participants. After removal of impossible values this
total was reduced to 2593. They were stratified according to condition and gender resulting
in a sample of 1000 participants. Participants were recruited using volunteer sampling, and
