We all heard the phrase “Be either smart or handsome and you’ll succeed in life” but is it always applicable? Most definitely yes, and you might’ve had an instance where you would have thought that someone got a better opportunity just on physical appearance alone. In pop culture, it is especially pronounced as many have high expectations of artists and influential figures alike. For example, Megan Fox has spoken in interviews about how her appearance has influenced her job opportunities, the expectations placed on her by the industry while she was combating body dysmorphia, and how uneasy she felt about being called something she wasn’t.
Now, the number of studies concerning this matter is overwhelming, but the Havard study revealed how in the United States workers of above-average looks earn up to 15% more than those of below-average attractiveness. This gap is quite large and similar to the gender and race gap, providing them with greater opportunities and more promotions, and it is often considered as a “beauty premium” or among teens as “beauty privilege”.
You might’ve seen this kind of phenomenon in school yourself, due to the fact that they are often perceived as more intelligent, bright and quick thinkers, regardless of how they might actually be or perform academically. It is also believed that many of those physically gifted individuals perform better at university or job interviews and are referred to as having a “halo” effect, which contains all the positive attributes you might think of, from healthy and successful all the way to sincere and creative!
beauty standards tend to focus more on women's appearances. Women are frequently subjected to increased scrutiny and pressure to fulfil unheard-of beauty standards, affecting their self-esteem and confidence. Furthermore, the beauty business favours women, resulting in higher spending on cosmetics, skincare products, and cosmetic surgeries compared to men.
Unsurprisingly, more studies indicate that attractive political candidates, regardless of gender, are more likely to be successful. Based on a Finnish study, voters prefer visually appealing candidates who are regarded as socially skilled. Similarly, Canadian research shows that beautiful politicians have an advantage in persuading uneducated voters. In his study of congressional elections in the United States, Daniel Stockemer discovered that participants overwhelmingly preferred handsome candidates. This tendency emphasises the importance of physical attractiveness in political success, which can question the integrity of decision-making and democratic procedures.
What drives such biases? A human's evolutionary instincts urge them to seek for features linked with good health and reproductive fitness, hence attractiveness is perceived as an indicator of genetic health. Another would be confirmation bias occurs when observers interpret evidence to confirm their prior ideas, resulting in a favourable perception of the behaviours displayed by attractive individuals. Moreover, stereotyping, which is firmly ingrained in society's biases, impacts views of ability and potential, frequently unfairly favouring attractive people. Lastly, the social comparison theory exacerbates the problem by comparing individuals to those who have more privileged lives, potentially leading to feelings of envy or low self-esteem.
The standards? High cheekbones, bigger lips, large eyes, and a small chin are connected with attractiveness in women, whereas a large jaw and broad chin are appreciated in men. Smooth skin, glossy hair, and facial symmetry are important characteristics of attractiveness on both sides! Ultimately, “beauty pays” isn’t always the case, with most successful individuals putting in at least some work towards stability. It is up to us to address such inequalities and advocate for merit over privilege!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Comments