The 'beauty premium:' when attractiveness makes for better employees

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder – and in the working world, that can mean better jobs and higher wages if those eyes belong to a boss. But is that always due to employers inappropriately favoring attractive people no matter the position, or should beauty simply be viewed as a productive attribute that is highly valued in certain jobs?

That is the question researchers are examining in the National Bureau Of Economic Research working paper, “Beauty, job tasks, and wages: A new conclusion about employer taste-based discrimination.”

The researchers reviewed employment data from the Berea Panel Study, a longitudinal study derived from post-college surveys of individuals who entered Berea College in the fall of 2000 and the fall of 2001. Within the employment data, the researchers categorized individuals per type of job, wages paid and the amount of time spent performing interpersonal tasks on the job compared to performing information tasks. The researchers then assessed attractiveness of the individuals surveyed based on their college ID photos.

The researchers found that the beauty premium varies widely across jobs with different task requirements. A large beauty premium exists in jobs that require substantial amounts of interpersonal interaction, while there is no beauty premium in jobs that require working with information and data – where attractiveness seems unlikely to truly enhance productivity.

“This stark variation in the beauty premium across jobs is inconsistent with the employer-based discrimination explanation for the beauty premium, because this theory predicts that all jobs will favor attractive workers,” the researchers write. “Moreover, we provide strong evidence that physically attractive workers sort into jobs where beauty is valued, just as theory would predict for any other productive attribute. Taken together, the results suggest that beauty should perhaps be simply viewed as a productive attribute that is highly valued in certain jobs.”

“Legislating away” pay differences based on attractiveness may be an appealing way to limit “employer taste-based discrimination,” but such laws could produce unintended negative consequences, the researchers contend.

“For example, if attractive workers are simply more productive in certain jobs, then removing the incentive to sort into jobs on the basis of this particular characteristic might negatively affect overall worker-employer match quality,” they write. “Moreover, an unintended inequity could arise because some individuals (e.g., those with high cognitive ability) would be allowed to take full of advantage of their most productive attributes while others (e.g., attractive workers) would not.”