problem 6 - physical appearance

Question 1

evolutionary origins of the importance of height

Answer 1

animals use height as an index for power and strength when making fight-or-flight decisions

from a sociobiological perspective, height equals power and therefore demands respect

Question 2

what is the main idea of the model of physical height & career success?

Answer 2

height affects career success through several mediating processes:
1. height affects how individuals regard themselves (self-esteem) and how they are regarded by others (social esteem)
2. social esteem and self-esteem affect job performance + how supervisors evaluate their job performance → in turn affects success in their careers

Question 3

model of physical height & career success

how does height affect social esteem?

Answer 3

the first process that links height to career success is the esteem in which others hold tall individuals

perceptual bias: people expect a pos relationship between an entity’s size and its value or status
bias extends to judgments about people’s height and the extent to which they are esteemed by others

social norms: height = importance & power → individuals seem to hold taller people in higher esteem + more likely to be convinced and persuaded by tall people

Question 4

model of physical height & career success

how does height affect self-esteem

Answer 4

as physical height is linked with social power and respect → short people may become dissatisfied with their physical stature

people also tend to take on the attributes that society ascribes to them
= tall individuals may develop greater feelings of self-worth and self confidence, bc they are consistently viewed and treated with respect by others - becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

Question 5

model of physical height & career success

how does social esteem affect job performance?

Answer 5

can increase objective performance, particularly in positions where social interaction is important - e.g. customers may be more likely to buy from a tall salesperson
* people who are admired or held in esteem → more able to develop trust, acquire information, or negotiate with others
* = an individual’s social power and stature may create a self-fulfilling process: esteemed people are more able to deliver job results that make them even more esteemed

can even more likely affect subjective performance
* others’ esteem for an individual can indirectly affect managers’ subjective job evaluations
* managers may factor their initial beliefs about employees into their subjective appraisals of performance → “causing” the relationships they expected (again creates a self-fulfilling process)

Question 6

model of physical height & career success

how does self esteem affect job performance?

Answer 6

self-esteem, confidence, and poise are assets on most jobs and lead to enhanced job performance
* even after controlling for actual productivity - model expects individuals with pos self-esteem to have higher performance ratings because “self positive” individuals are viewed more favorably and are better liked
* = predicts that self esteem is positively related to managers’ performance ratings

Question 7

model of physical height & career success

how does job performance (& height) lead to career succes

Answer 7

final stage in the model links employees’ objective and subjective performance to their earnings and career success
* rewards (e.g. pay and promotions) - often are tied to employees’ productivity on the job
* firms can distribute rewards such as pay level and promotions based on both objective results (what was accomplished) and subjective evaluations (how it was accomplished)

so height increases performance which increase career success

Question 8

judge et al (2004)

hypotheses (general predictions from the model)

(meta-analysis of relationship between height & workplace success)

Answer 8

hypothesis 1a: height is positively related to ascendancy into leadership
1b: height is positively related to earnings

hypothesis 2: height exhibits a simplex relationship with status, performance, and then career success - height is most strongly related to status and least strongly related to career success

hypothesis 3: height is more strongly related to subjective outcomes than objective outcomes

Question 9

judge et al (2004)

results

(meta-analysis of relationship between height & workplace success)

Answer 9

• hypothesis 1a supported → height is positively related to the leader emergence aspect of career success
• hypothesis 2 partially supported → data did not reveal predicted differences in the size of the height–performance versus the height–leader emergence linkage
• hypothesis 3 supported → subjective ratings have higher validity than extrinsic measures, and the difference is significant

potential confounding variables - height on earnings: gender, age & weight

Question 10

judge et al (2004)

control variables & method

(estimating the effect of height on earnings)

Answer 10

to increase the validity of estimates of the effect of height on earnings → took several control variables into account:
* gender: bc men and women differ in both height and earnings
* age: bc others may implicitly norm height by age
* weight: height and weight are correlated, but may exert effects in opposite directions

conducted 4 studies looking at measures of earning, age, gender, height & weight

Question 11

judge et al (2004)

results studies 1-4

(estimating the effect of height on earnings)

Answer 11

overall results are quite consistent with respect to the effect of height on earnings; across all four studies, height significantly predicted earnings

• study 1: age positively predicts earnings + height positively predicts earnings
• study 2: gender & weight negatively predicts earnings + age & height positively predicts earnings
• study 3: height significantly predicts earnings
• study 4: gender, weight & height significantly predict earnings

Question 12

judge et al (2004)

role of intelligence

(estimating the effect of height on earnings)

Answer 12

speculated that height and intelligence are positively related = tall people appear to have an advantage bc greater intellect
however, does not appear that the advantages of height are due to a possible link between height and intelligence

study 3 - intelligence and height were significantly correlated
study 2 - intelligence had no relationship with height

Question 13

judge et al (2004)

does the validity of height vary by occupation?

(estimating the effect of height on earnings)

Answer 13

results showed that in social interaction-oriented occupations, height is more predictive of earnings - bc may rely on appearance and stature as a means of achieving success
* height was correlated with earnings in sales and in management
* height less valid in less social occupations
* however, it is still important in all jobs

Question 14

judge et al (2004)

conclusion

(estimating the effect of height on earnings)

Answer 14

results revealed that height clearly matters in the context of workplace success
* effect of height appears to be quite stable over the course of one’s career
* height affects societal markers of status or success but not actual performance on the job - more predictive of subjective ratings than objective outcomes
* height seems to predict how observers perceive and evaluate others more than it predicts actual performance

Question 15

judge 2009

direct effects of attractiveness on income, education & core self-evaluations

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 15

hypothesis 1a: physical attractiveness is positively associated with income
prev studies shown that attractive adults were above the mean on occupational success

hypothesis 1b: physical attractiveness is positively associated with educational attainment
attractive ppl → more attention + more positive interactions
social support increases academic achievement and motivation

hypothesis 1c: physical attractiveness is positively associated with core self-evaluations

Question 16

judge 2009

direct effects of GMA on income, education & core self-evaluations

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 16

hypothesis 2a: GMA is positively associated with income
research has demonstrated a positive influence of cognitive ability on income

hypothesis 2b: GMA is positively associated with educational attainment
considerable evidence that intelligence affects educational attainment

hypothesis 2c: GMA is positively associated with core self-evaluations
the success that intelligent individuals find in many areas of life should carry over to their self-concept

Question 17

judge 2009

direct effects of education & core self-evluations on income

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 17

hypothesis 3: educational attainment is positively associated with income
established that educational attainment exerts a positive influence on income

hypothesis 4: core self-evaluations are positively associated with income
shown by prev research

Question 18

judge 2009

mediating roles of educational attainment & core self-evaluations

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 18

hypothesis 5a: educational attainment partially mediates the relationship between physical attractiveness and income

hypothesis 5b: core self-evaluation partially mediates the relationship between physical attractiveness and income

hypothesis 6a: educational attainment partially mediates the relationship between GMA and income

hypothesis 6b: core self-evaluations partially mediate the relationship between GMA and income

Question 19

judge 2009

income, core self-evaluations & financial strain

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 19

hypothesis 7a: income is negatively associated with financial strain

hypothesis 7b: core self-evaluations are negatively associated with financial strain

hypothesis 7c: income partially mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and financial strain

Question 20

judge 2009

method

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 20

191 participants + 3 different testing points over 1.5 years
measures:
* financial strain
* income
* core self-evaluations
* educational attainment
* physical atractiveness
* GMA

Question 21

judge 2009

results

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 21

• attractiveness sig influenced income, educational attainment & core self-evaluations - supports hypotheses 1a, 1b & 1c
• GMA had a pos, sig influence on income, educational attainment & core self-evaluations - supports hypotheses 2a, 2b & 2c
• educational attainments & core self-evaluations had sig effects on income - supports hypotheses 3 & 4
• income & core self-evaluations neg influenced financial strain - supports hypotheses 7a & 7b

attractiveness & GMA had sig direct & indirect effects on income thorugh education & core self-evaluations

GMA had more influence on income than attractiveness

Question 22

judge 2009

conclusions

(longitudinal - GMA x attractiveness x self-evaluations on income)

Answer 22

even accounting for intelligence, one’s income prospects are enhanced by being good-looking
* attractive people have higher self-worth and confidence → higher earnings and less financial stress
* education and core self-evaluations are key factors linking attractiveness and intelligence to income
* effects of self-concept on income are stronger than those of attractiveness & nearly as strong as those of intelligence

Question 23

kanazawa & still (2018)

the discrimination hypothesis

(longitudinal - beauty premium & ugliness penalty)

Answer 23

less attractive workers are discriminated against and paid less accordingly (or, equivalently, more attractive workers are favored and paid more accordingly)
* discrimination may come from the employers, coworkers, or customers

hypothesis 1 (discrimination): there will be a monotonically positive association between physical attractiveness and earnings

Question 24

kanazawa & still (2018)

occupational self-selection hypothesis

(longitudinal - beauty premium & ugliness penalty)

Answer 24

individuals with various levels of physical attractiveness sort themselves into different occupations and industries with different levels of average earnings
= there will be a pos association between attractiveness and earnings across occupations - even though, within each occupation, more attractive workers may not necessarily earn more

hypothesis 2 (occupational self-selection): the association between physical attractiveness and earnings will disappear once respondents’ occupations are statistically controlled

Question 25

kanazawa & still (2018)

individual differences hypothesis

(longitudinal - beauty premium & ugliness penalty)

Answer 25

more attractive workers may be genuinely different from less attractive workers in ways that affect their productivity
* e.g. attractive children are more likely to experience pos feedback from interactions → more likely to develop extraverted personality than less attractive children
* if healthier & more intelligent workers + workers with certain personalities, are genuinely more productive and earn more money → would appear that attractiveness is pos associated with earnings

hypothesis 3 (individual differences): physical attractiveness is a confound = it will no longer be significantly positively associated with earnings, once health, intelligence and personality are statistically controlled

Question 26

kanazawa & still (2018)

method

(longitudinal - beauty premium & ugliness penalty)

Answer 26

• survey of adolescent health: measures attractiveness of all respondents on a 5-point scale at four different points in life over 13 years
• dependent variable: earnings
• independent variables: physical attractiveness
• correlates of physical attractiveness – health, general intelligence & Big 5 personality
• control variables: occupation, demographics and socioeconomic variables

Question 27

kanazawa & still (2018)

results

(longitudinal - beauty premium & ugliness penalty)

Answer 27

replicated past findings of ‘beauty premium’ & ‘ugliness penalty’ - however: no longer significant once sex, age, and education were controlled
* discrimination & self-selection hypotheses disconfirmed
* association between physical attractiveness and earnings was not at all monotonic
* beauty premium did occur → attractive and very attractive earned slightly more
* ugliness penalty did NOT occur → very unattractive respondents earn more than either unattractive or average-looking respondents
* individual differences hypothesis supported - bcuz correlations were not sig after control factors accounted for
* pos effect of health & intelligence on earning + pos & neg effects depending on big 5 trait

Question 28

kanazawa & still (2018)

conclusions

(longitudinal - beauty premium & ugliness penalty)

Answer 28

individual differences explanation → STRONG SUPPORT
the apparent beauty premium and ugliness penalty may be a function of unmeasured traits correlated with physical attractiveness, such as health, intelligence, and personality.

discrimination and self-selection explanations → NOT supported

Question 29

luxen et al (2006)

attractiveness heuristic & the evolutionary explanation

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 29

attractiveness heuristic = attractive people are considered to be more competent, especially socially competent, and they are judged more positively

evolutionary perspective: could explain the preference for attractiveness
* our cognitions bias us to prefer partners who exhibit indices of fertility, high genetic quality, good development, and health
* men → limited by access to fertile women → adaptive to choose women who displayed cues of high fertility (indicated by attractiveness) → pretty face, youth symbol symmetry
* women → limited capacity of their body → adaptive to focus on direct physical cues such as health (not indicated by attractiveness) → ability to invest in offspring and intelligence

intrasexual competition: same sex individuals compete for prospective partners of the other sex

Question 30

luxen et al (2006)

study 1: hypotheses & method

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 30

hypothesis 1: men are more likely to hire highly attractive women than women are likely to hire highly attractive men (mate choice)
hypothesis 2: men are more likely to hire highly attractive men than women are likely to hire highly attractive women (intrasexual competition)

method: participants read a job description with low task demands → asked to rate the likelihood on a 10-point scale that they would hire each applicant (shown a picutre)

Question 31

luxen et al (2006)

study 1: results & conclusion

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 31

both hypotheses were confirmed
* men gave highly attractive male applicants higher scores than low attractive male applicants
* women gave highly attractive female applicants lower scores than to unattractive female applicants

compelling evidence for the attractiveness heuristics

could be argued that the attractiveness heuristic will only affect job selection situations in which a certain amount of contact between can be expected - tested in study 2

Question 32

luxen et al (2006)

study 2: hypothesis & method

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 32

hypothesis: in the high contact intensity condition, mate choice and intra-sexual competition are more prominent than in the low contact intensity condition

method:
* same photos as study 1
* manipulated expected contact intensity - said that the applicant would be working either at a different project, or at the same project as the participant
* participants rated on a 7-point scale the likelihood that they would choose each applicant

Question 33

luxen et al (2006)

study 2: results & conclusion

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 33

low contact condition → interaction between sex of participant, sex of applicant and attractiveness was not statistically significant
high contact condition → interaction between sex of participant, sex of applicant, and attractiveness, was statistically significant
all hypotheses confirmed

Question 34

luxen et al (2006)

study 3: aim & method

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 34

first 2 done in labs using students → imp to see whether results can be generalized to professional interviewers/assessors
aim: test whether professionals for selection also engage in attractiveness heuristic

method:
* used HR management professionals
* also manipulated contact intensity
* gave short description of applicant → assessed likelihood of hiring

Question 35

luxen et al (2006)

study 3: results & conclusion

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 35

• hypothesis 1: supported
• hypothesis 2: not supported
• high contact condition → HRM professionals were almost as strongly influenced by evolved preferences as were the students in study 1 and 2
• no intrasexual competition found → female HRM professionals did not give higher scores to unattractive female applicants than to attractive female applicants

Question 36

luxen et al (2006)

general conclusions

(attractiveness, sexual selection & personnel selection)

Answer 36

when the expected contact intensity was high → preferred highly attractive opposite-sex applicants
male participants showed this tendency more than females

male students were more likely to hire attractive same-sex applicants than were female participants, a preference related to intrasexual competition
HRM professionals did not show this preference

expected that HRM’s experience would make them more likely to overrule the attractiveness heuristic - BUT fell for the attractiveness heuristic as much as students