The Price of Beauty

Sandra Parshall

So here’s yet another long feature, this time in the December issue of Psychology Today, about research proving that beautiful people have an easier time getting ahead in the world.

Ho hum. What else is new?

Actually, I did come across something new in a sidebar. PT blogger Heidi Grant Halvorson reports on studies showing that beautiful women may be held back if the people deciding their fate are other women. Psychologist Maria Agthe looked into ratings of applicants for graduate scholarships and found that both males and females tended to give higher ratings to attractive members of the opposite sex – but the women responsible for judging applications penalized females who were beautiful. Halvorson points out that many ordinary-looking people don’t want gorgeous members of the same sex around to make them feel inferior.

This isn’t new information in the sense of being previously unheard of. We all instinctively recognize that reaction, don’t we? The desire not to make ourselves look bad by standing next to someone who outshines us. But I’ve never seen it presented as a studied, proven occurrence that can affect the course of educational and professional lives.

It’s just one more piece of proof that we’re at the mercy of our biology. Standards of female beauty are universal: youth, beautiful skin (a sign of good health), symmetrical features, and an hourglass figure (whether the culture values thinness or rounder figures, men want to see a waist). All these attributes indicate a woman is a good bet for passing on a man’s genes. A guy meeting an attractive woman for the first time probably isn’t consciously thinking I want her to have my children, but some primitive instinct is responding in exactly that way. Youth is all-important. Any older woman can tell you that past a certain age she became “invisible” to men. If she’s plain, she’s probably always felt that way. Although it’s dismaying to see proof that some women penalize others for being attractive, it’s hardly surprising that ordinary women don’t want to invite comparisons with beauties.

Even with other females trying to hold them back, though, attractive women often do better in their careers than equally talented and intelligent plain women. Good-looking men also tend to fare better than the ordinary or the ugly. As reported in Psychology Today, economist Daniel Hammermesh discovered that over the course of a career a handsome man will earn $250,000 more than his least attractive peer.

And yet.

When they’re looking for a passing romance, a fling, women may go for the best-looking guy at the bar. But when they have marriage and stability in mind, women don’t care as much about looks as they do about other factors that make a man a good mate. We’ve all seen beautiful women on the arms of ordinary or downright homely men. (Remember Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis?) What’s going on there? Simply stated, it’s the innate female desire for security. A plain man may become irresistible if he dresses in tailor-made suits and drives an expensive car. Those things spell status, and whether we like it or not, study after study has shown that women want to marry men who can offer them a stable, comfortable life.

Psychologist James McNulty at the University of Tennessee analyzed the relationships of various couples and found that the most supportive pairings were attractive women with less attractive husbands. In the least successful pairings, the husbands were more attractive than their wives. McNulty observed that a very attractive man may have trouble settling down and feeling satisfied with a single mate, and might resent missing “opportunities” with other women.

All this being true, it shouldn’t be surprising that some women in positions of authority will try to hold back other women, even the most capable and  talented, if they happen to be attractive. Still, it’s a sad thing to think about. It gives new meaning to that line from the old shampoo commercial: “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.”

Eye of the Beholder

by Sheila Connolly

Sandy is recovering from successful knee surgery which makes it hard for her to sit at her computer for long, so she asked me to fill in.

Sandy recently pointed out an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times: "For Crime, Is Anatomy Destiny?" (May 11, 2010), by Patricia Cohen. In it, the writer discusses whether physical attributes are correlated with the likelihood of committing (or being convicted) of a crime. There are studies currently being carried out by economists (why not psychologists, one might ask), and these suggest that certain physical traits are associated with criminal activity, namely:

–height: short men are apparently 20-30% more likely to end up in prison

–obesity

–physical attractiveness

This last one is certainly a loaded issue, because nowhere does the writer indicate what the standard for attractiveness is. Who gets to decide who is beautiful and who is ugly?

In any case, economists have already observed that in the labor market, height is directly related to salary (every inch of additional height means nearly 2% in greater earnings), beauty (employees rated beautiful earn 5% more per hour than an average-looking person; those rated "plain" earn 9% less than average–can someone tell me what the different between "average" and "plain" is?), and obesity. Sad to say, the last seems to apply primarily to white women.

The standard determinants such as education, experience, and productivity are not enough to explain the observed variation in wages. If you're still wondering how we jump from employment to crime, apparently crime can be considered an "alternative labor market."

So the bottom line is, someone who is overweight, unattractive or short is more likely to commit a crime.

Of course there are many other factors–health, social conditions, genetics, upbringing, and psychology–that affect criminal behavior, and I'm not going to discuss them all. What intrigued me about this whole discussion is one of those curious bits of serendipity: in a used bookstore a couple of weeks ago I happened to pick up a copy of Phrenology: New Illustrated Self Instructor, dated 1868. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, phrenology was a popular 19th-century theory that personality traits of a person can be determined by observing the shape of the skull (the skull conforms to the brain beneath, where traits manifest in specific, consistent areas). It is now considered a pseudoscience.

In light of the recent interest, I had to take a look at the book's section on Destructiveness, which is as close at the authors (O.S and L.N. Fowler, Practical Phrenologists) come to criminal inclination. I will say that the most of the slender volume is relentlessly cheerful and upbeat about the human condition; the Destructiveness section takes up all of two pages.

The header for the section on Destructiveness includes "Extermination, Indignation, disposition to Break, Crush, and Tear Down, the Walk-Right-Through-Spirit (don't you love it?)," as well as "Perversion–wrath, revenge, malice, disposition to murder, etc."

The authors describe the cranial characteristics that may suggest destructive behavior. According to their theory, animal propensities reside at the sides of the head, between and around the ears; ergo, brutes have little top-head. Destructiveness is located over the ears, "so as to render the head wide in proportion." Very wide and round heads indicate strong animal and selfish propensities.

For balance, I also looked at the section on "Beautiful, Homely, and Other Forms." There the authors stated:

"...shape is as character, well-proportioned persons have harmony of features and well-balanced minds; whereas those, some of whose features stand right out, and others fall far in, have uneven, ill-balanced characters, so that homely, disjointed exteriors indicate corresponding interiors, while evenly-balanced and exquisitely formed men and women have well-balanced and susceptible mentalities...and the more beautifully formed the more exquisite and perfect the mentality...those naturally ugly-formed are naturally bad-dispositioned."

Phrenology survived into the twentieth century, and even though neurological science has revealed much about the physical structure of the brain, it persists here and there–maybe even among those curious economists. Does appearance–as perceived by society–dictate character? Which comes first, physical form or behavior?

To add another twist, Edgar Allen Poe wrote an article about phrenology entitled "The Imp of the Perverse" for Graham's Magazine in July 1845. In it he proposed to add a principle of Perverseness, which prompts individuals to "act for the reason that we should not." He went on to say:

"I am not more sure that I breathe, than that the conviction of the wrong or impolicy to an action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us...to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to do wrong for the wrong's sake, admit of analysis..."

Just in case, writers, make sure your villains are ugly, with large, round heads. And of course your heroes and heroines are all tall, slender, and beautiful.