How being attractive can ruin your career: Good-looking men get less job offers because they intimidate bosses, says study

  • This is because interviewers see the candidate as a potential competitor
  • But if they need someone to help a team, bosses favour attractive men
  • Study says this may be because 'pretty men just seem more competent'
  • But there is no evidence that a link exists between looks and performance

You might think that good-looking men have every advantage in life.

But a new study suggests being handsome may not always work in a man's favour – at least when it comes to his career.

The research claims that attractive men are less likely to be given a job in a competitive workplace because they intimidate bosses.

You might think that good-looking men have every advantage in life. But a new study suggests being handsome may not always work in a man's favour – at least when it comes to his career

You might think that good-looking men have every advantage in life. But a new study suggests being handsome may not always work in a man's favour – at least when it comes to his career

'It's not always an advantage to be pretty,' says Marko Pitesa, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland. 'It can backfire if you are perceived as a threat.'

Interestingly, in Pitesa's study, it was male attractiveness in particular, rather than female beauty, that made the most difference.

If the interviewer expected to work with the candidate as part of a team, then he preferred good-looking men.

However, if the interviewer saw the candidate as a potential competitor, the interviewer discriminated in favour of unattractive men.

The research claims that attractive men are less likely to be given a job in a competitive workplace because they intimidate bosses

The research claims that attractive men are less likely to be given a job in a competitive workplace because they intimidate bosses

In the first experiment, 241 adults were asked to evaluate fictional job candidates based on fake qualifications and experience, in an online setting.

BEAUTY REALLY IS SKIN DEEP 

It's long been thought that symmetrical facial features are a sign of being more attractive, signalling a person's good health.

But new research has revealed beauty really is just skin deep, and does not protect against illness.

A study of almost 5,000 British teenagers found those with symmetrical facial features - regarded by many as being more attractive - were just as likely to fall ill as their asymmetrical counterparts.

The research flies in the face of previous findings that suggest there are fewer cases of illness among physically desirable people.

Perfect facial symmetry has traditionally been associated with attractiveness.

It is also thought to be behind the psychology of human mate choice, because it signals good health.

A team led by Dr Nicholas Pound, of Brunel University, used 3D face scans of 15-year-olds taking part to compare their features with a range of common illnesses as they grew up.

They found no association between the rate of 16 infections - including measles, mumps, tonsilitis, flu and glandular fever - and a person's looks.

Men evaluated men and women evaluated women. Interviewers were primed to either think of the candidate as a future co-operator or competitor, and they were given a computer-generated headshot that was either attractive or unattractive.

'Kind of attractive and average, maybe slightly below average,' Pitesa clarifies - no supermodels.

A second experiment involved 92 people in a lab. They were asked to evaluate future competitors or partners in a quiz game, based on credentials that included sample quiz answers, and they saw similar headshots.

The patterns of discrimination based on perceived self-interest was the same.

Another test opened up to include men interviewing women and women interviewing men.

There was still a preference to cooperate with the attractive man and compete against the unattractive man.

A final experiment used photographs of actual European business school students, vetted for attractiveness, and found the same pattern.

The results suggest that interviewers were not blinded by beauty, and instead calculated which candidate would further their own career.

'The dominant theoretical perspective in the social sciences for several decades has been that biases and discrimination are caused by irrational prejudice,' Pitesa says.

'The way we explain it here, pretty men just seem more competent, so it is actually subjectively rational to discriminate for or against them.'

On a deeper level, she adds, the behaviour remains irrational, since there's no evidence that a real link exists between looks and competence.

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now