Studies have shown that the more attractive you are, the more likely you are to earn more money, get promoted or even just get hired. This cognitive bias is called the ‘Halo Effect’- the more attractive someone is, the more good qualities you perceive them to have.
According to a paper on the 2018 congressional midterms, more attractive candidates are more likely to get elected.
Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
In one sample of Americans and Canadians, economists found that attractive people make 12% to 14% more money than unattractive people.
Abercrombie & Fitch paid a $50-million settlement for hiring white upper-class retail assistants, but it was still not banned from imposing attractiveness standards in its recruitment policies, as long as the attractive people it recruited were ethnically diverse.
This bias not only has favourable implications for conventionally attractive people but severe negative consequences for people who don’t fit society’s beauty standards. This is because if the standard for highly-paid CEOs and bosses encompasses society’s aesthetic criteria, then this deepens the prejudice against those deemed ‘unattractive’, furthering discrimination against those who are disabled, obese or tattooed for instance, weakening their job prospects, despite them potentially being more able or suitable for the job.
Do you have a pretty bias?
Written by Coco Clelland
Artwork by Mrishana
Comments