Is there really a beauty premium or an ugliness penalty on earnings?

Purpose Economists have widely documented the “beauty premium” and “ugliness penalty” on earnings. Explanations based on employer and client discrimination would predict a monotonic association between physical attractiveness and earnings; explanations based on occupational self-selection would explain the beauty premium as a function of workers’ occupations; and explanations based on individual differences would predict that the beauty premium would disappear once appropriate individual differences are controlled. In this paper, we empirically tested the three competing hypotheses about the “beauty premium”. Design/Methodology/Approach We analyzed a nationally representative and prospectively longitudinal sample from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Findings Findings The results contradicted the discrimination and self-selection explanations and strongly supported the individual differences explanation. Very unattractive respondents always earned significantly more than unattractive respondents, sometimes more than average-looking or attractive respondents. Multiple regression analyses showed that there was very weak evidence for the beauty premium, and it disappeared completely once individual differences, such as health, intelligence, and Big Five personality factors, were statistically controlled. Implications Past findings of beauty premium and ugliness penalty may possibly be due to the fact that: 1) “very unattractive” and “unattractive” categories are usually collapsed into “below average” category; and 2) health, intelligence (as opposed to education) and Big Five personality factors are not controlled. It appears that more beautiful workers earn more, not because they are beautiful, but because they are healthier, more intelligent, and have better (more Conscientious and Extraverted, and less Neurotic) personality. Originality/Value This is the first study to show that: 1) very unattractive workers have extremely high earnings and earn more than physically more attractive workers, suggesting evidence for the potential ugliness premium; and 2) the apparent beauty premium and ugliness penalty may be a function of unmeasured traits correlated with physical attractiveness, such as health, intelligence, and personality

Did Narcissism Evolve?

This chapter, like each chapter in the edited book, focuses on narcissism (arrogance, exploitativeness, self-admiration, etc.). My goal is to entertain and evaluate the possibility that narcissism evolved. It is important to point out that, by way of background, just because something is morally suspect does not mean that it didn’t evolve; indeed, bad things can evolve. But despite narcissism being heritable, there is no direct evidence that narcissism is caused by specific genes, indicating that the evolutionary mechanisms are unknown. Through which pathways—such as mating pathways—does narcissism get passed onto the next generation? Narcissism appears to be positively correlated with short-term mating (e.g., promiscuity), suggesting that narcissism gets pushed into subsequent generations via promiscuous activity. The idea that narcissism evolved via short-term mating, however, is currently questionable, mainly because narcissists are not physically attractive at the unadorned level; in theory, narcissists should be attractive at the unadorned level because short-term mating situations select for raw attractiveness. All told, the prospect of narcissism having evolved is in a precarious position as of this writing. Several gaps in the literature lead to a call for more molecular genetic research and collaborative, large-scale behavioral research

Personality at Face Value: Facial Appearance Predicts Self and Other Personality Judgments among Strangers and Spouses

Character judgments, based on facial appearance, impact both perceivers’ and targets’ interpersonal decisions and behaviors. Nonetheless, the resilience of such effects in the face of longer acquaintanceship duration is yet to be determined. To address this question, we had 51 elderly long-term married couples complete self and informant versions of a Big Five Inventory. Participants were also photographed, while they were requested to maintain an emotionally neutral expression. A subset of the initial sample completed a shortened version of the Big Five Inventory in response to the pictures of other opposite sex participants (with whom they were unacquainted). Oosterhof and Todorov’s (2008) computer-based model of face evaluation was used to generate facial trait scores on trustworthiness, dominance, and attractiveness, based on participants’ photographs. Results revealed that structural facial characteristics, suggestive of greater trustworthiness, predicted positively biased, global informant evaluations of a target’s personality, among both spouses and strangers. Among spouses, this effect was impervious to marriage length. There was also evidence suggestive of a Dorian Gray effect on personality, since facial trustworthiness predicted not only spousal and stranger, but also self-ratings of extraversion. Unexpectedly, though, follow-up analyses revealed that (low) facial dominance, rather than (high) trustworthiness, was the strongest predictor of self-rated extraversion. Our present findings suggest that subtle emotional cues, embedded in the structure of emotionally neutral faces, exert long-lasting effects on personality judgments even among very well-acquainted targets and perceivers