申論題

        In the seminal work on the effect of appearance on social interactions, Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) theorize that individuals, when asked to evaluate an attractive other, would more readily assert that more attractive individuals were happier and more successful in their lives than less attractive individuals, applying an "attractiveness stereotype" to their judgments. This effect, sometimes referred to as what is beautiful is good, is also well known as the beauty premium effect. Subsequent research suggests that such biases lead individuals to perceive attractive individuals as more sociable, socially skilled, and popular, as well as more competent (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992) and intelligent (Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010; Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010; Paunano, 2006; Sheppard, Goffin, Lewis, & Olson, 2011). These effects are even relatively consistent across gender of target and perceiver (Eagly et al, 1991; Feingold, 1992). 

       The attractiveness stereotype is a specific instance of a more general psychological principle known as the halo effect, in which individuals ascribe characteristics to others based on the presence of another observable characteristic (Thorndike, 1920). Such errors are stunningly prevalent in data derived from ratings of others (Kozlowski, Kirsch, & Chao, 1986), to such an extent that one scholar described the problem thusly: "halo error, like death and taxes, seems inevitable" (Feldman, 1986, p. 173). Halo errors are thought to be a reflection of a rater's inability to differentiate between characteristics being evaluated, although in many circumstances, these errors occur automatically, below the level of conscious information processing (van Leeuwen & Macrae, 2004). 

      The axiom "what is beautiful is good" applies to many social settings (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster, 1972:285). In human interactions, attractive individuals are immediately perceived as being more likeable and friendly (cf. Brewer and Archer, 2007). At the workplace, more attractive individuals gain a pay premium of up to 10 percent and are prone to advance their careers faster than less attractive employees (Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994). In politics, good-looking politicians are more likely to be nominated to executive positions at all levels in comparison to politicians who are perceived as less attractive (Ibrocheva, 2009). In elections, attractive candidates frequently get a vote premium of several percentage points solely based on their looks (Tsafati, Elfassi, and Weismiel-Manor, 2010; Hoegg and Lewis, 2011). Inferred from the psychology and sociology literature, the physical attractiveness stereotype holds true in marketing. Marketing researchers have already tested the beauty premium with marketing-related variables such as purchase intentions, patronization behavior, and even tips received.

         Although the beauty premium has been extensively examined, it is possible that beauty can be beastly (Heilman and Saruwatari, 1979), being good-looking can also backfire. Gheorghiu, Callan, and Skylark (2017) find that students rate unattractive professors as better scientists than attractive professors. Agthe et al. (2010) found that physical attractiveness can lead to interpersonal derogation. Iindividuals may avoid interacting with others who are physically attractive because of self-presentation concerns (Agthe et al, 2014; Wan and Wyer, 2015). In service interactions, this beastly beauty' can cause lower purchase intentions and consequently lower business performance (Wan and Wyer, 2015). Thus, it is of great importance to study under what conditions the beauty premium does not hold. Recent Sstudies also indicate a potential ugliness premium: unattractive people are perceived as more intelligent and earn significantly more than their attractive counterparts (e.g, Gheorghiu, Callan, and Skylark 2017; Kanazawa and Still 2018), which suggests that the effect of atractiveness is nonlinear. Peng et al. (2020) find that while attractive faces fare better in sociability than both plain-looking and unatractive people, they are not considered more competent than unattractive people, who are perceived as more competent than plain people, resulting in a plainness penalty. These relations are moderated by product relevance (appearance vs. expertise) and a cross-gender effect for women looking at male sellers.
摘自:
  Li, Y., Zhang, C., & Laroche, M. (2019). Is beauty a premium? A study of the physical attractiveness effect in service encounters. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 215-225. 

Palmer, C. L., & Peterson, R. D. (2016). Halo effects and the attractiveness premium in perceptions of political expertise. American Politics Research, 44(2), 353-382.

 Peng, L., Cui, G. Chung, Y., & Zheng, W. (2020). The Faces of Success: Beauty and Ugliness Premiums in e-Commerce Platforms. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 67-85.

 Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2015). Blinded by beauty? Physical attractiveness and candidate selection in the US House of Representatives. Social Science Quarterly, 96(2), 430-443.