Photo by Pepi Stojanovski on Unsplash
LONDON — Good news if you’ve been told you’re either “very attractive” or “very ugly” — there’s a decent chance you earn more money than those around you, according to a study.
Researchers at the London School of Economics and the University of Massachusetts have been able to somewhat dispel a pervasive theory regarding attractiveness, commonly referred to as a “beauty premium” or the “ugliness penalty.” Previous studies have found that those who are good-looking command higher wages in their employment. This phenomenon has been seen in a wide range of professions, from business to law.
It turns out that people aren’t necessarily discriminated against because of their appearance, the researchers determined.
For their analysis, Satoshi Kanazawa and Mary Still, the study’s co-authors, examined a dataset pulled from a popular survey looking at adolescents, the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, also known as “Add Health.” The survey is notable in that it measures physical attractiveness for a given individual in four installments over a period of 13 years, doing so on a five-point scale.
In their analysis, Kanazawa and Still write that while more attractive individuals often out-earned their less attractive peers, this was often due to the presence of other qualities. Those qualities being smarter, healthier, calmer, more extroverted, and more conscientious.
“Physically more attractive workers may earn more, not necessarily because they are more beautiful, but because they are healthier, more intelligent, and have better personality traits conducive to higher earnings,” says Kanazawa in a statement.
Attractiveness can be beneficial either way, for some
Interestingly, those who were categorized by Add Health as being “very unattractive” were also higher earners. They always outearned those who were deemed “merely unattractive,” and in some cases made more money than individuals of average and above-average attractiveness.
The finding that those on the far end of either side of the beauty spectrum make a better living was likely skipped over in previous studies because individuals less attractive than average were all lumped into one category.
In addition, few studies have examined all of the combined factors that Kanazawa and Still took into account.
The study is published in the Journal of Business and Psychology.
I guess we can thank the SJWs for this travesty.
Everyone knows that ugly people can make as much money as attractive people, they just have to work a lot harder at it. Take chubby girls, for instance, that are willing to do anything in bed because they know the attractive girls are much more stingy in the bedroom.
My late friend liked fat girls. He said they were always more “appreciative.”
And durable.
“Late”? Did one roll over on him in his sleep?
Successful at what?
“It turns out that people aren’t necessarily discriminated against because of their appearance, the researchers determined.” Bullshit
It’s true, in fact, its a prerequisite to climb to the top of the democrat party.
Bill Clinton was not ugly. At least on the outside.
You need glasses for the man was not a handsome man just a perv… and not that great in the sac as his former lovers have revealed
Didn’t say he was handsome. Just not physically ugly, like, for example, Web Hubbell. On the inside, he’s the second ugliest person alive.
After Hillary?
He definitely is now.
With none of the carpet burns on the knees.
I disagree with the article
Good looks is a premium across all cultures. What defines “good looks” (in my opinion)
-Facial symmetry. Regardless of race symmetry is an essential part of looking good.
-Youth. Youth is associated with beauty and explains why older people strive to look younger than more attractive
-Health and vitality. From healthy looking skin to body strength naturally brings attraction.
-Etiquette to good manners: being beautiful inside is just as important. A good looking person who is nasty does not win.
-Good grooming; is basic aspects of being an attractive person in any culture
I am sure there are more but this is just the minimum
stfu
I admire your brevity, while still being able to get your point across.
SPOTTED THE UGGO
stfu 2.0
So you copied this off an article, you just didn’t “come up” with this on the fly….
A study shows how easy it is to dupe people with stupid articles….
Look at Maxine Waters. A textbook example.
Dennis Hastert, Barney Frank, Toe tapping Larry Craig, Daniel John “Dan” Flood, Nancy Pelosi, Madelene Albright, Sandy Berger, Louis Lerner, … the list goes on and on and on.
Yup a whole US government full of some of the ugliest people on earth
+ You forgot Meryl Creep
Web Hubbell and his illegitimate daughter.
Ugly is not only skin deep. Maxine’s recent comments about the administration proves that point.
“In politics stupidity is not a handicap.” Napoleon
Ten four
I wonder if the results measured the level of effort required for the really ugly to earn more than the attractive? Would these people typically have more education of work twice as hard as attractive people?
Either way, maybe it gives hope to a few people who fall in to the realm of the most ugly.
Meryl Streep, Mick Jagger and Nancy Pelosi skew the numbers.
Attractiveness is very subjective, unlike height or income. How do they quantify beauty?
Uhh…I don’t know. I can’t tell whether Jennifer Aniston or Rosie O’Donnell is more physically attractive. I’m sure people argue for hours over this.
I’ve read numerous people that don’t think Jennifer Aniston is very attractive. Mostly regarding aspects of her facial features. But between Rosie and Jennifer I think the winner is clear.
One of those studies that seem to be the opposite of my personal experiences. I feel mostly for women on this issue, as I have watched beautiful women endure less heartache. Beautiful women are accepted when they go through difficult programs, less likely to be ignored, easily get help and endure less ridicule when wrong, etc… Without getting into personal experiences, I have watched very attractive women breeze through difficulties, because they were escorted through it with acceptance and a lot of help/assistance. I have always said beauty vs ugliness is the real unfair advantage in this country. This has always appeared much stronger than race or culture. There are also studies that adamantly disagree with this particular study., With that said, those women that were given an unfair shake in this department appear stronger in the long run, if they endure. Of course, all of this is generalizing.
What about its affect on men?
Things are easier for the more attractive, but not just because of their looks. The traits that are often seen as the most attractive are the most rare among the population…mutations, if you will. Despite the stereotype, no doubt promoted by ugly people, that attractive people are typically less intelligent, the opposite has been proven true in numerous studies.
Perhaps, things are easier for attractive people, simply because they are easier? Of course there are no absolute rules in life, but it is interesting to think about.
Yeah Elizabeth Taylor had the life what seven marriages twice three times to the same guy and her best friend in the end was the greatest child abuser and junkie in the history of the USA.
Thank god money was spent on this…
LOL. Especially when other studies have stated the exact opposite.
Well, since the tech dorks came along, they skewed the whole bell curve.
I live in Silicon Valley, trust me, they’re the saddest looking gaggle of maggots you’ll ever lay eyes on.
The long list of POTUSs with their very ugly wives and children is evidence enough besides has any one taken a good look at the average federal government worker and their bosses?
Eleanor Roosevelt’s face could scare the flies off a $h!twagon.
Roosevelt married his cousin for politics and carried on many affairs and not only with his pretty secretary.
And she had affairs with women as well.
As does Former impeached POTUS Bill Clinton’s wife
Maybe that’s why Hillary likes to talk to her.
Impeach: isn’t that a lib word that means sore loser.
Ewww.
And she was rich. I guess it proves the point.
Not by her own means
The article doesn’t elaborate where the wealth comes from. It is a tautology.
Not all rich women are ugly
Not all ugly women are rich.
and Not all Ugly women are Rich
The Democrats are far uglier, especially the women.
It’s a shame you’re not educated enough to understand that proper nouns, including those for religious and mythological beings, are capitalized, comrade.
I’m WILLING to point out that your response should win the award for “Most Random Criticism” of a rhetorical remark on a ridiculous study. I hope my grammar and capitalization was sufficient enough for you this time.
You grammar debasing beast.
Only liberals would exult in their mediocrity, comrade. We Americans believe in doing our best.
I’m an atheist, American Republican, you presumptuous jackass.
As for being a Republican, all that proves is that a liberal by any other name is just as foul, comrade.
It’s worth noting that you didn’t call yourself a conservative or American, which means you may have some vestigial decency in you. I can only hope you work on bringing that out.
Maybe one day, when you grow up, you’ll learn to read (entirely) and realize how ridiculous you are.
I was born and raised in America. Hate to shatter your reality, but that actually makes me an American.
And no, it’s not worth noting that I didn’t refer to myself as a conversative.
Americans are free to believe whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t infringe onto other people, “comrade.”
Alright, this was fun, but I’m done encouraging your socially inadequate attempt at what you seemingly believe to be a legitimate debate.
Please keep going, if you wish. I’m sure others enjoy scratching their heads at your off-base responses, too.