Its tough to get hired when you look good

[Khayr]

Handsome politicians get more time on TV and attractive employees make more money, so you might think it's safe to assume that being ridiculously good looking is a career advantage. Not so fast.

 

A new study found attractive people can actually be at a disadvantage when interviewing for a new job or academic scholarship.

 

In a paper titled "Don't Hate me Because I'm Beautiful," published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Maria Agthe of Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich and her co-authors, Matthias Spörrle (Ludwig-Maximilians-University) and Jon K. Maner (Florida State University), describe the results of two experiments aimed at discovering the perks and pitfalls of being hot.

 

In the first test, 2,639 students were told to behave as if they were on a scholarship selection committee. They were given information on a group of finalists including grades, extracurricular activities and, most importantly, photos.

 

The pictures had been tested in advance by an unconnected group of 40 students in order to determine attractiveness.

 

As might be expected, both men and women chose the most attractive candidate far more than the least attractive, with men being slightly more biased toward the attractive candidate than women (no surprise there). However, the attractiveness bias held only when panel members were evaluating members of the opposite sex; when a man evaluated a man, or a woman a woman, the favouritism toward the good looking ceased.

 

In other words, being good looking ceased to be an advantage when being judged by someone of the same sex. The researcher's second test expanded on this conclusion with fascinating results.

 

The second experiment asked 622 students to play the role of recruiter and evaluate job applicants. Again, information about each applicant included a photo which had been independently judged to be either attractive or moderately attractive. The major difference between the two tests was that in the second, the attractiveness of the evaluator was also recorded.

 

Again, men and women gave the advantage to attractive candidates when dealing with the opposite sex, while judging attractive candidates of the same sex more harshly.

 

However, the same-sex bias against attractiveness didn't hold in every situation. When the interviewer was highly attractive themselves, they did not disadvantage an attractive candidate. Only when dealing with someone more attractive than themselves did the interviewer tend to form a negative impression.

 

Agthe suggests the results are caused by "those for whom highly attractive same-sex competitors present a particularly pernicious social challenge."

 

So once again, it all boils down to evolutionary biology. While an attractive member of the opposite sex would make a desirable mate, one of the same sex would only pose competition - competition that would only come into play if the hottie was better looking than you (maybe with shinier fur for example).

 

The study raises interesting questions about the recent dismissal of a Citibank employee, allegedly on the grounds that she was too hot.

 

Debrahlee Lorenzana has launched a lawsuit claiming that her male co-workers orchestrated her dismissal on the grounds that her good looks were "too distracting."

 

It begs the question: Could there be a point at which someone becomes too attractive? Or, so enticing they might attract too many mates, creating conflict within a community that would hamper hunting and gathering?

 

Could a person really be too good looking for their own good? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Yahoo news

Next time, I want an all women panel of interviewers.