Physical Attractiveness and Income Attainment Among Canadians

Roszell, Patricia; Kennedy, David W.; Grabb, Edward

doi:10.1080/00223980.1989.10543009

Cited by 63 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two related studies examined the relationship between attractiveness and income for people drawn from the general population. In a study of Canadians, Roszell, Kennedy, and Grabb (1989) found that attractive men earned more than unattractive men, but that attractiveness did not influence the salaries of women. In a study of Americans and Canadians, Hamermesh and Biddle (1994) divided their sample population into attractive, average, and unattractive people.…”

Section: Physical Attractiveness and Labor Marketsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions

Solnick

Schweitzer

1999

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

291

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Physical Attractiveness and Labor Marketsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In labor markets, men benefit more than women from being attractive (Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991;Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994;Roszell, Kennedy, & Grabb, 1989). These norms may translate to ultimatum game behavior, and the offers to and demands of attractive men may be particularly extreme.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions

Solnick

Schweitzer

1999

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

291

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, good-looking people are judged less likely to commit criminal acts (Saladin, Saper, & Breen, 1988), attractive defendants are more likely to receive lenient verdicts in mock trials (Castellow, Wuensch, & Moore, 1990), attractive infants are rated more favorably than less attractive ones (Karraker & Stern, 1990), good-looking children are judged to be more socially and academically capable tban less physically appealing ones (Kenealy, Frude, & Shaw, 1988), grade school children prefer attractive teachers to unattractive teachers (Hunsberger & Cavanagb, 1988), and perhaps more alarming, mock jurors recommend harsher punishments for defendants who have raped an attractive woman than those who raped an unattractive woman (Kanekar & Nazareth, 1988). The bias toward the physically attractive can also help explain why researchers have found in several studies that good-looking people tend to earn higher incomes than unattractive peers (Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991;Roszell, Kennedy, & Grabb, 1990;Umberson & Hughes, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the Beautiful Good in Hollywood? An Investigation of the Beauty-and-Goodness Stereotype on Film

Smith¹,

McIntosh²,

Bazzini³

1999

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physically attractive individuals are often viewed more favorably than unattractive people on dimensions that are weakly related or unrelated to physical looks, such as intelligence, sociability, and morality. Our study investigated the role of U.S. films in this "beauty-andgoodness" stereotype. In Study 1, we established that attractive characters were portrayed more favorably than unattractive characters on multiple dimensions (e.g., intelligence, friendliness) across a random sample from 5 decades of top-grossing films. The link between beauty and positive characteristics was stable across time periods, character sex, and characters' centrality to the plot. Study 2 established that exposure to highly stereotyped films can elicit stronger beauty-and-goodness stereotyping. Participants watching a highly biased film subsequently showed greater favoritism toward an attractive graduate school candidate (compared with ratings of an unattractive candidate) than participants viewing a less biased film.The quality of these films is completely beside the point, as they are only required to loyally express my personal worldview-punish the wicked, reward the attractive, and have as little to do with reality as possible.-Libby Gelman-Waxner (1997; italics added) Looks may not be everything, but physical good looks usually work in one's favor. Such is the conclusion of a quarter century's worth of research on physical attractiveness (PA) effects. Do the mass media encourage or reinforce the pervasive stereotypes that link beauty and positive traits?Much of the work on the beauty-and-goodness stereotype was triggered by the report of K. K. Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972), who found that "what is beautiful is good" in the eyes of many observers. In a variety of studies conducted since that time, physical good looks have been found to elicit many favorable reactions. Perhaps not surprisingly, people view physically attractive individuals as more desirable romantic partners (Suman & Kureshi, 1988). In addition, good-looking people are judged less likely to commit criminal acts (Saladin, Saper, & Breen, 1988), attractive defendants are more likely to receive lenient verdicts in mock trials (Castellow, Wuensch, & Moore, 1990), attractive infants are rated more favorably than less attractive ones (Karraker & Stern, 1990), good-looking children are judged to be more socially and academically capable tban less physically appealing ones (Kenealy, Frude, & Shaw, 1988), grade school children prefer attractive teachers to unattractive teachers (Hunsberger & Cavanagb, 1988), and perhaps more alarming, mock jurors recommend harsher punishments for defendants who have raped an attractive woman than those who raped an unattractive woman (Kanekar & Nazareth, 1988). The bias toward the physically attractive can also help explain why researchers have found in several studies that good-looking people tend to earn higher incomes than unattractive peers (Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991;Roszell, Kennedy, & Grabb, 1990;Umberson & Hughes...

show abstract

“…We used three types of regressions to ensure robustness: ordinary least-squares (OLS), individual fixed-effect, and two-stage least squares. We used OLS as a benchmark, and an individual fixed-effect model (Biddle and Hamermesh 1998;Roszell et al 2001) to remove from the estimation all traits that remained stable over time and might affect leisure and happiness (Diener et al 2003). Finally, after a standard test for the adequacy of the instrument, we used a two-stage instrumental variable model to reduce endogeneity biases (Angrist and Krueger 2001).…”

Section: Definitions and Estimation Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%