Don't hate me because I'm beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation and decision making

M. Agthe*, Matthias Spörrle, Jon K. Maner

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Scopus citations

Abstract

Within organizational judgment and decision making contexts, biases based on an evaluated person's attractiveness are among the most salient and frequently investigated. An enormous amount of research indicates favoritism for attractive people compared to unattractive ones. The current research demonstrates that the nature of this bias depends on whether one is evaluating a member of the same sex or the opposite sex. Experiment 1 (n= 2639) investigated selection of scholarship applicants and demonstrated that a pro-attractiveness bias held only for selection of opposite-sex scholarship applicants; no such bias was observed for highly attractive same-sex applicants. Experiment 2 (n= 622) investigated evaluations of prospective job candidates and demonstrated again that pro-attractiveness bias was observed only for opposite-sex candidates; participants discriminated against highly attractive same-sex candidates. Moreover, this bias was not observed among highly attractive participants; it held only for moderately attractive participants, those for whom highly attractive same-sex individuals can pose especially potent social threats. Findings suggest that attractiveness biases in organizational decision making are rooted partly in the social threats and opportunities afforded by attractive people.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1151-1154
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Experimental Social Psychology
Volume46
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Keywords

  • Attractiveness
  • Gender
  • Person selection decisions
  • Stereotypes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Don't hate me because I'm beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation and decision making'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this