The Ugliness of Discrimination
Two summers ago I strolled down Newberry Street in Boston, MA with my parents. We proceeded down the street, walking past many restaurants with outdoor patios. Something not-so surprising struck me. Every restaurant we passed employed a very attractive female hostess. It seemed these restaurants were discriminating on the basis of physical appearance.
Of course, this observation is hardly remarkable. The psychology and marketing literatures feature much work showing how people positively respond to physically attractive models. A 1979 Advertising Age article summarized why businesses demand (usually female) physically attractive models: “Beauty may only be skin deep but, for an advertiser, that’s deep enough to make a considerable impression on consumers.” Dion et al. in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology find that physically attractive men and women are perceived to be more sensitive, kind, strong, modest, sociable, and of better character than less attractive individuals. Oregon psychologist Alan Feingold points out that beauty is perceived to be correlated with intelligence, social skills, and health. When physically attractive hosts elicit these positive responses, it’s no wonder restaurants consistently hire them. Holding all else constant, attractive hosts are more “capable” than less attractive hosts.
But this condition isn’t unique to restaurants. Georgetown public policy professor Harry Holzer highlighted in a 1993 survey that, on average, a practically significant number of firms consider beauty when making employment decisions. Eleven percent of firms reported that appearance was “very important” and that 39 percent said appearance was “somewhat important” in their hiring processes.
Keep in mind that United States antidiscrimination law was written to prevent the denial of employment based on “height, weight, and personal appearance.”
Economists find that physically attractive workers, subjectively defined by facial and physical features, are also paid more than employees of average attractiveness. Hamermesh & Biddle 1994 find that after controlling for other wage-determining factors, workers of above-average beauty are paid ten to fifteen percent more than average looking workers. Take note that these results are similar in size to gender and race pay gaps in the U.S.
The economists also find that the ugliness pay-penalty is larger than the beauty pay-premium. Put another way, the pay penalty homely people face is larger in magnitude than the pay premium beautiful people receive, relative to average attractiveness. Beyond the hourly-wage differences and holding all else constant, below-average looking women face a social penalty of typically marrying husbands whose educational attainment and earnings potential is less than theirs. So beauty affects the net earnings of women in both the workplace and at home.
Other studies highlight the magnitude of the pay gap. In a later study of beauty and lawyers’ earnings, Hamermesh & Biddle 1998 report that beauty isn’t just correlated with earnings, but that it causes higher earnings. In this study, Hamermesh & Biddle generate their data on lawyers’ beauty by having a panel of four demographically diverse judges rate the beauty of photographs of the faces of a law school’s entering class.
The earnings gaps they find are large. Above-average looking lawyers working in the private sector are paid about $10,200 more a year than average looking lawyers, and beautiful public sector lawyers are paid $3,200 more than their average looking counterparts. Like restaurant hosts, beautiful lawyers may be more productive than their average-looking lawyers. Since people find beautiful people more trustworthy than average looking people, beautiful trial lawyers may be more capable than average looking lawyers because they can more easily convince juries of their contentions. Either way, these earnings gaps are economically significant and deserve our attention.
Although discrimination on the basis of beauty probably seems less bad than discrimination on the basis of gender or race, it is statistically no less important. In the cases of racial and sexual discrimination, a unifying characteristic unites the mistreated group. This makes organizing against discrimination comparatively easier. But since beauty is subjectively defined and organizing around beauty discrimination requires unattractive people to realize and accept that people perceive them to be homely, little social action has occurred.
I’ll conclude by suggesting one highly interesting, though utterly impractical proposal.
Policymakers might consider levying a flat tax on above-average looking people and transfer the proceeds to below-average looking people. Lawmakers could determine personal beauty by perfecting computer software to calculate beauty (such software does, indeed, exist) and attaching the data to Americans’ social security numbers or drivers licenses. Using computer software would be ideal because it would decrease the possibility of ratings bias. If we assume changing one’s beauty score is not costly and all Americans regardless of income have the same aversion to paying a beauty tax, then if the tax were large enough to incentivize Americans to physically alter their complexion and change their beauty score, it’s possible that the decrease in American net beauty could become costly to Americans who probably derive some utility from living with beautiful people. This psychological cost would have to factor into tax calculations.
But levying a beauty tax isn’t practical. The American tax system is already far too complicated and imposing such a tax effectively would be practically impossible. As English author P.D. James writes, “You could legislate for every kind of discrimination but not this. In everything from jobs to sex the attractive were advantaged, the very plain denigrated and rejected.”
Nevertheless, we should more carefully consider this form of discrimination, as it’s as economically important as other, more popularly considered forms of discrimination.
Print
Email
#1: 2/9/2010 at 5:38 a.m.
While we're at it, let's levy a "Smart Tax" because smart people earn more on average than stupid people.
Given that the author advocates considering implementing a "Beauty Tax", he/she would probably be a beneficiary of such a "Smart Tax"
(I apologize in advance for this post. The internet just makes it too easy to flame. I'm sure the author is a lovely, brilliant person)
— -- | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#2: 2/9/2010 at 11:48 a.m.
This is one of those odd pieces that baffles and terrifies, whether intended as earnest suggestion or satire.
— SMH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#3: 2/9/2010 at 5:00 p.m.
This is what happens to Society once you've let the commie scum fluoridate the water.
— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#4: 2/9/2010 at 7:52 p.m.
"But since beauty is subjectively defined and organizing around beauty discrimination requires unattractive people to realize and accept that people perceive them to be homely, little social action has occurred."
— AHAHAHAHHAHA | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#5: 2/9/2010 at 7:53 p.m.
"The economists also find that the ugliness pay-penalty is larger than the beauty pay-premium. Put another way, the pay penalty homely people face is larger in magnitude than the pay premium beautiful people receive, relative to average attractiveness."
That's not putting it another way. To put that another way, that's not putting it another way at all. Good thing I understood it the first time.
— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#6: 2/9/2010 at 7:59 p.m.
Is this a serious piece? If this truly is the case, then all those 'extreme-makeover' types might be on to something more than vanity.
And how beautiful does one have to be to begin receiving such aforementioned perks? I sense yet another soon-to-be-published 'how-to' manual/self-help book...
— Hmm | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 2/9/2010 at 8:45 p.m.
More practical than a tax: cut the butt cheeks off of the prettier people and glue them to their foreheads.
— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#8: 2/9/2010 at 9:32 p.m.
um... so what's your point?
— o.O | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 2/9/2010 at 9:49 p.m.
This is a serious piece that happens to be darkly humorous. The statistical evidence that below-average looking people are paid less is robust.
Peter '11: You got me.
o.O.: My last paragraph: "Nevertheless, we should more carefully consider this form of discrimination, as it’s as economically important as other, more popularly considered forms of discrimination."
— Soren Larson | Registered, Swarthmore
#10: 2/9/2010 at 9:51 p.m.
This article is beyond ridiculous, as everyone has already pointed out, but to take it seriously for half a minute, it's also missing some pretty crucial thought processing on what "beauty" is (note that the author automatically switched from talking about average- and attractive-looking "people" to how "below-average looking *women* face a social penalty...").
"Beauty" and "ugliness" aren't exactly standalone categories - when we use words like this, what we're really saying is "does this person fit prescribed ideal gender norms?" This certainly ties back to gender AND race discrimination, no matter how much the author tries to separate them. Since I imagine that for most of this article readers were continuing to think of the subject here as a woman, although the author tried to use "person", and "attractiveness" aka gender normative idealism for women in this context really means how thin they are, what they're wearing, their race, whether they wear makeup and how/etc, this isn't separate from race and gender gaps - it's all connected right into it.
Ridiculous article, but one with serious implications for how we think about gender...
— D | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#11: 2/9/2010 at 10:07 p.m.
ugliness being a bigger penalty than beauty a gain=loss aversion!
— Tversky and Kahneman | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#12: 2/9/2010 at 10:26 p.m.
30 Rock season 3 episode 15 ("The Bubble") is surprisingly relevant.
if you're a fan of the show, do watch.
— r | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#13: 2/9/2010 at 11:18 p.m.
Hey guys, let's tax white people because they're historically more privileged! Or better yet, let's tax taller people, because they make more than their shorter counterparts! Or better YET, let's not allow tall or attractive people to breed so that everyone can be on what we perceive to be a more equal playing field!
Honestly...I've come to expect more than an average amount of pandering and ridiculous things on this website, but proposing that a tax be levied because of uncontrollable genetic circumstances takes the cake. Who can we tax to penalize the lack of editors on this publication?
— AYC '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#14: 2/9/2010 at 11:43 p.m.
If ugly people can't band together to organize against attractiveness-based discrimination, maybe women can band together since this IS a sexism issue: women are judged more on their looks than men are (though I think beautiful men still make more money than less beautiful men, right? just the difference isn't as stark as it is for women?). D was right for pointing out that Soren switched between "women" and "people" when it would have been better to explicitly recognize the gendered dimension of this phenomenon.
I agree with D that we shouldn't reify beauty, because much of it (particularly ideal body types) is socially constructed. But, when it comes to facial beauty, there is cross-cultural agreement on what features are considered attractive (e.g., symmetrical face, big eyes, prominent cheek bones) and infants largely prefer the same faces that adults do, suggesting that it's not all socially constructed.
— my2c | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#15: 2/9/2010 at 11:45 p.m.
I'm not commenting on the relevance or possible policy implications of "beauty discrimination," however, I do find it interesting to point out that not all classic beauty measurements are based on culture. We, as humans, have evolved to find some traits quite literally attractive. There are differences in levels of beauty.
Don't rule this out, commenters. An evolutionary perspective in no way suggests that discrimination based on beauty is OK or that gender and race discrimination is or is not latent in every day definitions of beauty in this society. It may, however, give some insight into how these norms came into existence before they became perniciously co-opted and distorted to create ideal types later used to justify discrimination.
Just a thought from a biologist. I think it's interesting to think about. And for the record, I identify as a Darwinian feminist.
— Ms Darwin | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#16: 2/9/2010 at 11:54 p.m.
P.S. agree 100% with #14, my2c
— Ms Darwin | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#17: 2/10/2010 at 12:24 a.m.
I don't even know what you're talking about right there.
— Mr. Darwin | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#18: 2/10/2010 at 12:25 a.m.
As a scientist I know that you are wrong.
— Lightbourne | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#19: 2/10/2010 at 3:32 p.m.
AYC '11, very (well) humorously said.
— Amused | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#20: 2/10/2010 at 9:59 p.m.
my2c- Agreed.
AYC and lauders-
I included the suggestion to tax beautiful people because I thought it was theoretically interesting, not because it was practical or right. I think I made that clear in the article.
Regarding your (smug) suggestion of taxing white people because they're historically privileged, you should more carefully consider your suggestion. I'll first point to affirmative action, which is a classic example of what you're implying.
Secondly, consider the differences in high school dropout rates, poverty rates, early-pregnancy rates, etc. among whites and nonwhites. The data show that these rates are higher for non-whites than they are for whites. We can also say that these problems stem partially from historical white privilege. Because of this historical privilege, whites generally have higher incomes than nonwhites and nonwhites rely more heavily on the tax-funded 'social safety net' than do whites.
So historical white privilege (partially) causes problems from which nonwhites suffer. So by mitigating those problems of nonwhites, we can erase a bit of that white privilege, which was AYC '11's suggestion. But to mitigate these problems, the government needs money to finance this social safety net. But we know that whites have higher incomes than do nonwhites, so whites generally pay proportionately more to finance this social safety net. This partially qualifies as a tax on whites because of their historical privilege.
— Soren Larson | Registered, Swarthmore
#21: 2/11/2010 at 2:36 a.m.
@Soren, regarding #20:
really?!
"social safety net...partially qualifies as a tax on whites because of their historical privilege."
This neoliberal frame fails to disguise a convoluted and bizarre attempt at rationalizing AYC's facetious statements.
— Z | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#22: 2/11/2010 at 12:03 p.m.
Wait, Z, I think Soren IS trying to show that though AYC was trying to be facetious, we do in fact partially sort of tax white people.
— j | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#23: 2/14/2010 at 1:07 p.m.
I definitely categorize and stereo-type, given that this is how our brain processes information.
I do not think an attractive lawyer is better at his/her job, just the opposite, he/she is probably inferior and enjoys a free ride due to his/her nice appearance. That lawyer would (unknowingly) have to prove to me his/her abilities in any arena outside of beauty. On the other hand, I might prefer to have an attractive hairstylist!
— catcar | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore