


































PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND CAREER SUCCESS


 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND CAREER SUCCESS 
 
 

Lisett Acevedo 
Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 
 
 

The way an individual feels or see’s themselves physically can affect 
their overall confidence, self esteem, and can be equated with one’s 
capabilities in other aspects of life.  This study examines how perceptions 
of one’s image, specifically one’s physical attractiveness, can be viewed 
as having an influence on how successful an individual believes he/she 
can be in their career.  The study focuses on how an individual feels 
about his or her physical attractiveness and if they believe it is a career 
determinant.  The findings suggest that individuals have stereotypes 
about the importance of possessing a specific image for career success.  
The findings also indicate that there needs to be further research done on 
how the perception of one’s physical appearance might be perceived as 
effecting other life opportunities and achievements (such as one’s self-
esteem, personal relationships, and leisure pursuit).  Furthermore, this 
study’s findings can also exemplify how certain occupational and 
organizational stereotypes can be reinforced and continued. Therefore, 
the findings show that further analysis on stereotypic role expectations 
within the workplace need to be conducted.  By doing so, the extent to 
which this is having an effect on potential employees, workplace 
perceptions, and upward mobility of current employees can be further 
explored and addressed. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
1Individuals hold beliefs about their own 
image and degree of physical 
attractiveness. These beliefs may 
encompass physical characteristics such 

                                                           

Lisett Acevedo is a graduate student in the 
Department of Sociology. Her paper was 
originally submitted to SOC. 410 Advanced 
Statistics, taught by Dr. Hyojoung Kim in Winter 
2011. 

as one's height, weight, and demographic 
attributes like gender, race, and age.  
Such beliefs are likely grounded in and 
reflective of the current cultural and 
social norms regarding image and 
attractiveness in a society.  Beliefs about 
the importance of image, personal 
appearance, and physical attractiveness 
in the workplace may reflect 
occupational and organizational 
stereotypes.  Perceptions of one's own 
image may influence assessments of 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  68 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

self-esteem and self-efficacy and serve 
to establish expectancies about the 
likelihood of success in certain 
occupations.  Occupational stereotypes 
about the importance of image and 
physical attractiveness for career success 
in certain occupations may become the 
basis for image norms.  An individual 
may believe that he or she needs to 
possess a specific image to work at and 
be successful in certain occupations, 
industries, and companies. These beliefs 
may be likely to arise from one's own 
experiences, messages from family and 
friends in the social network, and 
messages from the media.  The goal of 
this study is to analyze individual’s 
opinions on the relationship, if any, 
between physical attractiveness and 
career success. 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

 Literature on physical 
attractiveness and career success 
includes studies on the effects of 
personal image on career outcomes.  The 
studies analyze the role that image 
norms play in the career decisions and 
upward mobility of current employees.  
In Female Managers and Quality of 
Working Life: The Impact of Sex-Role 
Stereotypes, Bartol(1980) explains the 
impact of sex-role stereotypes on the 
quality of working life of female 
managers is assessed by reviewing sex 
differences literature within a framework 
of Walton's (1974) eight dimensions of 
quality of working life. The results 
suggest that sex-role stereotypes are 
associated with adverse effects on the 
quality of working life of female 
managers as compared to male 

managers.  This article suggests that 
until stereotypic role expectations are 
questioned and changes are made, an 
individual is not likely to achieve 
improvement in the quality of work life.  
This shows that there is a relationship 
between physical attractiveness and 
career success because if one meets the 
stereotypic role expectations held within 
the workplace, then he or she will be 
successful.  But if one does not meet 
said criteria, the chances of upward 
mobility are likely to be reduced.    

In Dellinger and Williams (1997) 
Makeup at Work: Negotiating 
Appearance Rules in the Workplace,  
they seek to understand women's use of 
makeup in the workplace. They analyze 
20 in-depth interviews with a diverse 
group of women who work in a variety 
of settings to examine the appearance 
rules that women confront at work and 
how these rules reproduce assumptions 
about sexuality and gender.  They found 
that expectations for wearing makeup do 
vary by occupation and organization, but 
in all the cases they studied, makeup 
connoted heterosexual femininity.  In 
occupations in which makeup use is 
normative, those who refuse to wear it 
were typically suspected of being 
lesbian.  Women then must negotiate 
societal standards of beauty with the 
demands of their particular workplace 
and occupation.  Individuals feel that 
they are often held accountable to 
heterosexual norms of appearance in 
interactions with not only others, but in 
the workplace as well.    

Haskins and Ransford (1999) in 
The Relationship between Weight and 
Career Payoffs among Women studied 
how weight affects women's life chances 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  69 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

for reaching high-status, white-collar 
jobs.  The data was gathered from 
surveying a large aerospace organization 
(N = 306). They hypothesized that 
women who are at or below their 
desirable weight will have higher 
incomes and occupational positions than 
women who are overweight.  
Overweight women are more likely to 
encounter discrimination because they 
are more likely to be isolated from 
informal occupational experiences and 
contacts that are part of the screening 
process so important for career mobility. 
The literature on gender and 
organizations indicates that women are 
more isolated and less likely to be placed 
on the fast track required for promotion 
(Lawrence, 1985; Miller et al, 1975).  As 
a result, it is highly plausible that weight 
adds an additional increment of 
disadvantage such that overweight 
women are even more isolated than 
women as a whole. Consequently, 
overweight women are less likely to be 
groomed for upward mobility, which can 
lead physical attractiveness to have an 
impact on career success. 

In Discrimination, Harassment, 
and the Glass Ceiling: Women 
Executives as Change Agents, Bell, 
McLaughlin and Sequeira (2002) 
analyze the relationships between 
discrimination, harassment, and the glass 
ceiling.   They also discuss factors that 
prevent women from occupying 
executive and managerial positions.  The 
authors argue that increasing 
representation of women at executive 
levels in organizations will have a 
positive effect on all levels of 
discrimination and promote gender 
equality.  This can help ensure that 

organizations base upward mobility on 
job-related criteria and not on other 
factors such as image and physical 
attractiveness.   

Lerum (2004), in Sexuality, 
Power, and Camaraderie in Service 
Work,  considers the issues of gender, 
sexuality, power, and context in light of 
ethnographic data collected in two 
service work (waitressing) 
establishments. Within these 
organizations, many workplace 
sexualized interactions emerge as 
facilitating camaraderie and 
empowerment between workers. The 
article concludes that the sexual 
particularities of a workplace should be 
interpreted as one of its many cultural 
features, reflective more of its 
organizational conditions than of a static 
sexual symbolism.  This study 
demonstrates women's use of sexual 
banter with their coworkers and how 
they use their sexual interactions with 
coworkers in a positive way.  
 
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 
 

This research will examine the 
effect that perceived physical 
attractiveness has on career success.  I 
hypothesize that individuals who 
perceive themselves to be physically 
attractive tend to consider physical 
attractiveness as a career determinant 
where as those individuals who do not 
consider themselves to be physically 
attractive may not consider physical 
attractiveness a determinant.  As the 
degree of an individual’s perception of 
his or her physical attractiveness 
increases, the individual's belief in their 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  70 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

ability for a successful career also 
increases. 

 
Other Research Hypotheses: 

Age- would have a positive effect 
on the belief that physical attractiveness 
is a major determinant of career success. 
In the past where society was much 
more gendered, people tended to 
evaluate the virtue of women on the 
basis of their appearances rather than 
their professional abilities. With a large 
number of women being incorporated 
into the  American labor force and an 
increasing number of women escalated 
into leadership positions, such 
perceptions changed dramatically. 
Accordingly, it is hypothesized that 
older individuals are  more likely to hold 
the gendered view of physical 
attractiveness as determinant of career 
success than their younger counterparts 
who tend to hold more merit-based 
beliefs.  

Race- would have an effect on the 
belief that physical attractiveness is a 
major determinant of career success 
because companies may prefer to hire 
and retain employees whose image is 
consistent with their organizational 
image.  Individuals may rely on 
organizational images as one factor in 
determining their potential fit with a 
particular company.  Therefore, it is 
hypothesized that African Americans, 
Hispanics, Asians, and those individuals 
who identify themselves as Other racial 
groups have more Career Importance of 
Physical Attractiveness than Whites.   

Gender- would have a negative 
effect on the belief that physical 
attractiveness is a major determinant of 
career success because of perceived 

gender differences in ratings of skills 
and abilities may also emerge in self-
evaluations of image and attractiveness.   

Education- would have a positive 
effect on the belief that physical 
attractiveness is a major determinant of 
career success because the higher the 
education attained (high school, trade 
school, or university), the more likely  
qualifications needed for higher 
positions would be met. 

Political Affiliation- would have 
an effect on the belief that physical 
attractiveness is a major determinant of 
career success because organizations 
may prefer to hire and retain employees 
whose political affiliation is consistent 
with theirs.  Therefore, it is hypothesized 
that Republicans would have less Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness 
than Democrats, whereas those 
individuals who identify themselves as 
Independent and Other groups would 
have more Career Importance of 
Physical Attractiveness than Democrats. 

Income- would have a positive 
effect on the belief that physical 
attractiveness is a major determinant of 
career success because individuals 
earning higher salaries would be 
expected to feel more appreciated and 
recognized in the workplace. 
 
 
 
THE DATA AND SURVEY 
PROCEDURES 
 

The subjects selected for the 
study were individuals in my social 
network as well as those I have most 
access to.  The sample included 62 
family and friends, 149 employees in the 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  71 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

law enforcement field, and 23 students at 
a state university.      

Due to the time framework and 
costs of administering the survey in 
person, through the mail, or over the 
phone, email was the only feasible 
option that could generate a large 
number of respondents in a short period 
of time and with no expenses.  Email 
surveys are relatively easy to complete 
as respondents simply click on response 
boxes and click "submit"  once they are 
done.  It also allows the respondent to 
take the survey at any time of day and at 
his or her convenience.  By emailing the 
survey instead of administering it in 
person or with phone interviews, it can 
also elicit more honest responses. 

The Nonprobability Sampling 
Method was used. Surveys were then 
emailed to respondents who were chosen 
based on their availability.  The surveys 
were emailed on Friday, November 20. 
2009.  However, Thanksgiving Holiday 
was taking place on Thursday, 
November 26th , and some respondents 
might not be able to respond until after 
the holiday.  As a result the return date 
was set for Tuesday, December 1, 2009 
so as to allow adequate time for some 
individuals who would be away on 
vacation to reply.  Given the holiday 
took place while the survey was 
administered, it could also cause some 
respondents to not take part in the 
survey.  In order to increase the response 
rate, an email reminder was sent on 
Saturday, November 28th , reminding 
individuals to take the survey as well as 
thanking them if they had already done 
so. 

A total of 234 surveys were 
emailed out of which a total of 209 were 

completed and returned before or on the 
due date for a response rate of 89.3%.  
Due to the confidentiality nature of the 
survey and the email survey design 
utilized, no comment on demographic 
characteristics can be made on the 25 
individuals who did not respond.   

The final sample is not a 
representative sample because the 
nonprobability sampling method was 
used.  This could cause generalizability 
and validity issues because no 
systematic technique was used to select 
the respondents and they mostly 
consisted of a single population from 
which they were drawn, leading to a 
biased sample.  Therefore the sampling 
error is also higher and the results 
obtained cannot be generalized to a 
larger population.   

Given the survey was 
administered via email and was 
anonymous, subjects felt less guarded 
and more comfortable to be honest with 
their responses.   As a result, the survey 
is least vulnerable to social desirability 
effect.    

A focus group totaling five 
individuals were chosen to pre-test and 
improve the survey.  The individuals 
chosen are employees in a transportation 
company.  I did a group administered 
survey of the focus group.  The 
respondents were chosen because of 
their availability.  It took them an 
average of 15-20 minutes to complete 
the survey.  I briefly interviewed all five 
respondents to get feedback to improve 
and revise the survey.  Overall, they felt 
comfortable with the survey, understood 
the survey instructions, questions, 
wording and response categories.  They 
helped me by pointing out that a few 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  72 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

questions were not phrased correctly.  I 
needed to filter out the questions that 
would illicit the information needed, and 
get rid of the ones that were repetitive or 
did not pertain to the topic of study.  I 
also needed to put the questions in order 
so as to make the questions flow from 
one topic to the other and not jump from 
one topic to the next and back and forth.  
The phrasing was also unclear and that 
could bring about leading questions.  I 
had to revise the terminology used in a 
question in order to not cause an effect 
on the responses I would get.  Some 
questions were also getting off topic as 
to bringing about information that was 
not relative to testing my hypothesis.  I 
needed to be more specific and detailed.  
The questions needed to be neutral and 
more direct.  By doing so I think the 
quality of the information gathered for 
analysis is better.  

 
MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES 
 

Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness (DV)- the belief that 
physical attractiveness is a major 
determinant of greater occupational 
potential and/or opportunities in 
different jobs, companies, and fields. 
This variable will be measured in terms 
of absolute v. relative assessment: 
Absolute Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness and Relative Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness.     

Absolute Career Importance of 
Physical Attractiveness-To measure this 
variable, respondents are asked to 
indicate their level of agreement using a 
6-point Lickert scale of “strongly 
disagree”, “disagree”, “somewhat 
disagree”, “somewhat agree”, “agree”, 

and “strongly agree”, for the following 
statement: Physical appearance is 
important for a career. 

Relative Career Importance of 
Physical Attractiveness- To measure this 
variable, respondents are asked to rank 
in order of importance each of the 
following seven factors that in their 
opinion is most important in determining 
one’s career success: 
Age  
Gender  
Race 
Education 
Human capital (such as skills, 
knowledge) 
Social capital (such as friendships, 
networks) 
Physical appearance (such as 
attractiveness) 
Physical Attractiveness (IV)—is the 
perception of the physical traits of an 
individual as aesthetically pleasing, such 
as body structure, social skills, dress 
attire, and use of make-up. To measure 
this variable, respondents are asked: In 
your personal opinion, how much more 
physically attractive do you think you 
are compared to other persons? Very 
Unattractive, Unattractive, Somewhat 
Unattractive, Somewhat Attractive, 
Attractive, Very Attractive 
Age—the age variable is defined as the 
chronological age of the individual.  
Respondents are asked the following 
question:  How old are you?___years old  
Race—the race variable is defined as the 
categorization of humans into 
populations or groups on the basis of 
various sets of heritable characteristics.  
Conceptions of race, as well as specific 
ways of grouping races vary by culture 
and over time.  Some physical features 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  73 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

commonly seen as indicating race are 
salient visual traits such as skin color, 
facial features, and hair texture. To 
measure respondent’s race, this study 
uses GSS variable Race.  This variable 
has the following response categories: 
White, African American, 
Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Race Other.  In 
our analysis, this variable is coded into 
the following variables: African 
American (coded 1 if a respondent is 
African American, 0 otherwise), 
Hispanic/Latino (coded 1 if a respondent 
is Hispanic/Latino, 0 otherwise), Asian 
(coded 1 if a respondent is Asian, 0 
otherwise), and Race Other (coded 1 if a 
respondent is Race Other, 0 otherwise).  
The White variable is used as the 
reference category. 
Gender—refers to the set of 
characteristics that humans perceive as 
distinguishing between male and female 
entities, extending from one's biological 
sex to one's social role or gender 
identity.  Respondents are asked:  Please 
indicate whether you are:  (1) Male or 
(2) Female  
Education—the education variable is 
defined as the years of education 
attained, such as completion of high 
school, a trade school, or a university 
with a Bachelor’s degree or higher.  
Respondents are asked the following 
question: Which of the following best 
describes the highest level of education 
you have received?  (1) Less than High 
School Graduation, (2) High School 
Graduation, (3) Some College, (4) 
University with a Bachelor’s Degree, (5) 
Graduate Degree or Higher.  
Political Affiliation—is defined as the 
political party an individual chooses to 
identify with.  This variable has the 

following response categories:  
Republican, Democrat, Independent, 
Green Party, Don’t Know, Other.  In our 
analysis, this variable is coded into the 
following three dichotomous variables: 
Republican (coded 1 if respondent is 
Republican, 0 otherwise), Independent 
(coded 1 if respondent is Independent, 0 
otherwise), and Other (coded 1 if 
respondent is Other, 0 otherwise).  The 
Democrat variable is used as the 
reference category.  
Income—is defined as the monetary sum 
of all the wages, payments, and other 
forms of earnings received in a given 
period of time for their work.  
Respondents are asked the following 
question: Which of the following best 
describes your annual income last year? 
(1) Less than $20,000; (2) $20,000 – 
$40,000; (3) $40,000 – $60,000; (4) 
$60,000 – $80,000; (5) $80,000 – 
$100,000; (6) $100,000 or more  

 
FINDINGS 
 
Respondents’ Characteristics 
Respondents consisted of 53.1% females 
and 46.9% males.  The majority of them 
(50.7%) were Hispanic, followed by 
Whites (19.1%), African American 
(19.1%), Asian (7.7%), and Other 
(3.3%).  The majority of them (43.5%) 
had some college education and 24.4% 
have graduated from a university with a 
Bachelors Degree.  These two groups 
consisted of 67.9% of all respondents.  
Twenty-seven percent of them reported 
an annual income of $60,000-$80,000 
for the previous year followed by 23.9% 
reporting $20,000-$40,000.  These two 
groups represented 51% of all 
respondents.  Given the findings, we can 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  74 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

presume that most of the respondents 
were employed as recent as last year, if 
not currently employed.   
  
Univariate Summary Statistics 

Table 1 shows a mean of 4.86 and 
a standard deviation of 1.20 for 
measuring Absolute Career Importance 
of Physical Attractiveness.   As Figure 1 
illustrates, the majority of respondents 
(83) expressed they “strongly agree”, 54 
respondents expressed they “agree”, and 
46 respondents expressed they 
“somewhat agree” that physical 
appearance of an employee is important 
for a career.  These three groups 
represent 87.5% of all respondents.  
Only 11.9% of respondents expressed 
any type of disagreement.  These 
findings reflect a relatively overall high 
degree of career importance of physical 
attractiveness.  With these findings, we 
can presume that some individuals may 
have stereotypes about the importance of 
possessing a specific image for career 
success. 

A somewhat different picture 
emerges when we measured 
respondent’s opinion about career 
importance of physical attractiveness 
relative to other successful career 
determinants such as: Age, Gender, 
Race, Education, Human capital (such as 
skills, knowledge), and Social capital 
(such as friendships, networks).  Table 1 
shows a mean of 3.72 and a standard 
deviation of 1.35 for measuring Relative 
Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness.  As Figure 2 illustrates 
the majority of respondents (88) 
identified that physical appearance (such 
as attractiveness) as fourth most 
important factor in determining career 

success.  The second largest group of 
respondents (44) expressed that physical 
appearance is somewhat important for a 
career.  These two groups represent the 
largest percentage of the respondents 
(63.2%).   

These findings show that while 
respondents generally consider Physical 
Appearance (such as attractiveness) as 
an important determinant of one’s 
career, their opinion tends to vary 
greatly in terms of absolute v. relative 
assessment.  For example, when 
respondents are asked to indicate their 
level of agreement with Physical 
Appearance of an employee being 
important for a career,  the majority of 
respondents (83) expressed they 
“strongly agree”, as Figure 1 illustrates.  
That is when evaluating only the 
importance of physical appearance and 
its importance for a career (absolute 
assessment), it was viewed as very 
important by the majority of 
respondents.  However, when 
respondents are asked to rank in order of 
importance the factors that determine 
one’s career success, such as: Age, 
Gender, Race, Education, Human capital 
(such as skills, knowledge), and Social 
capital (such as friendships, networks), 
and Physical appearance (such as 
attractiveness), Physical Appearance was 
then viewed by respondents as fourth 
most important factor in career 
importance not first (relative 
assessment).          

Table 1 reports the univariate 
distribution of the respondents on each 
of the variables used in the analysis.  
Table 1 shows a mean of 4.47 and a 
standard deviation of 0.72 for measuring 
Physical Attractiveness.   As Figure 3 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  75 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

illustrates, the majority of respondents 
(108) expressed “somewhat attractive”, 
73 respondents expressed “attractive” 
and 18 respondents expressed “very 
attractive” when they compared 
themselves with other persons.  These 
three groups represent 95.2% of all 
respondents.  Only 4.8% of respondents 
(10) expressed themselves to believe to 
be “somewhat unattractive” as compared 
to other persons.  These findings reflect 
a relatively overall high level of physical 
attractiveness individuals hold about 
their own image as compared to others.  
Overall, these statistics indicate that the 
respondents perceive themselves to 
encompass certain physical 
characteristics that make them physically 
attractive that other persons do not have. 

 
Bivariate Pearson’s Correlation 
Analysis 

Table 2 reports Pearson’s 
correlation coefficients among the 
variables.  Table 2 shows that the effect 
of self-perceived physical attractiveness 
on career importance of physical 
attractiveness varies depending on how 
the career importance of physical 
attractiveness is measured.  The 
Pearson’s correlation coefficient 
between Absolute Career Importance of 
Physical Attractiveness and Physical 
Attractiveness is positive and statistically 
significant at the 0.01 level.  This 
indicates that individuals who perceive 
themselves to be physically attractive 
tend to consider physical attractiveness 
as a career determinant, if the career 
importance is measured in an absolute 
sense.  However, if the career 
importance of physical attractiveness is 
measured relatively by pitting it against 

other career determinants, self-perceived 
Physical Attractiveness fails to have a 
statistically significance relationship 
with the Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness(relative).  As shown in 
Table 2, the Pearson’s correlation 
coefficient between Education and 
Relative Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness is negative and 
statistically significant at the 0.01 level.  
Positive and statistically significant 
correlations at the 0.05 level were also 
found between Education and Physical 
Attractiveness, between Hispanics and 
Physical Attractiveness, and between 
individuals whose political party 
affiliation is Independent and Physical 
Attractiveness.  A negative and 
statistically significant at the 0.01 level 
association was also found between Age 
and Physical Attractiveness.   

 
 

Multivariate Regression Analysis 
The outcomes of bivariate 

associations may be spurious due to the 
effects of other variables that may affect 
both the dependent variable and the key 
independent variable simultaneously.  
Better evidence can be found if the 
effects of these other variables are 
controlled for.  In order to control the 
effects of other variables on Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness, 
the data is analyzed using multivariate 
regression techniques. Logistic 
regression analysis for ordinal dependent 
variables was used since Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness is 
ordinal.   

As shown in Table 3 the 
Nagelkerke R Square shows that the 
model fits the data well, providing 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  76 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

empirical support that the model 
successfully explains 21% of the 
variance in Absolute Career Importance 
of Physical Attractiveness.  In addition, 
the score test for the parallel regression 
assumption is statistically insignificant at 
.05 level.  These results indicate we fail 
to reject the null hypothesis which states 
that the slope coefficients are the same 
across categories.  Table 3 shows the 
relationship of independent variables and 
Absolute Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness (DV).  The regression 
coefficients of Gender, Age, African 
American, Hispanic, Asian, Education, 
Income, Republican, and Independent 
are all statistically insignificant at 0.05 
net of other variables in the model.  
These findings show that whether the 
respondent was male or female, their 
age, racial identification, the years of 
education attained, their salary, and their 
political party affiliation have no 
significant effects on Absolute Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness 
(DV).  However, for individuals that 
identified themselves as belonging to the 
Other category of political party 
affiliation the regression coefficient is 
negative and statistically significant at 
0.01 level net of other variables in the 
model.   

The most important finding is the 
regression coefficient of Physical 
Attractiveness that is positive and 
statistically significant at .01 net of other 
variables in the model.  I hypothesized 
that Physical Attractiveness has a 
positive effect/relationship with Absolute 
Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness (DV).  The findings 
support the notion that as the degree of 
an individual’s perception of his or her 

physical attractiveness increases, the 
beliefs in his or her ability for a 
successful career also increases.   

For Table 4, the Nagelkerke R 
Square shows that the model fits the data 
well, providing empirical support that 
the model successfully explains 18% of 
the variance in Relative Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness.  
In addition, the score test for the parallel 
regression assumption for Table 4 is 
statistically insignificant at .05 level.  
These results indicate we fail to reject 
the null hypothesis which states that the 
slope coefficients are the same across 
categories.  Table 4 shows the 
relationship of independent variables and 
Relative Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness (DV).  The regression 
coefficients of Gender, Age, African 
American, Hispanic, Asian, Income, 
Republican, Independent, and Other are 
all statistically insignificant at 0.05 net 
of other variables in the model.  These 
findings show that whether the 
respondent was male or female, their 
age, racial identification, their salary, 
and their political party affiliation had no 
significant effect on Relative Career 
Importance of Physical Attractiveness 
(DV).  Although for the Education 
variable, the regression coefficient is 
positive and statistically significant at 
0.01 level net of other variables in the 
model.  This means that as the level of 
education attained by the respondent 
increased, so did their belief in physical 
attractiveness as a important career 
determinant.   

The most important finding is the 
regression coefficient of Physical 
Attractiveness being positive and 
statistically significant at .01 net of other 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  77 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

variables in the model.  I hypothesized 
that Physical Attractiveness has a 
positive effect/relationship with Relative 
Career Importance of Physical 
Attractiveness (DV).  These findings 
also support the hypothesis that 
individuals who perceive themselves to 
be physically attractive tend to consider 
physical attractiveness as a career 
determinant.           
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 
 

This study draws on survey data 
from a sample of 209 respondents to 
primarily investigate the perceived effect 
that physical attractiveness has on career 
success.  The majority of the 
respondents consisted of employees in 
the law enforcement field and students at 
a state university.  The survey 
procedures, sampling, and data analysis 
support the paper’s key research 
hypothesis that as the degree of an 
individual’s perception of his or her 
physical attractiveness increases, the 
beliefs in his or her ability for a 
successful career also increases.           

The reported evidence may have 
some limitations with generalizability 
and validity because of the sample 
composite.  For example, based on the 
diversity of the respondent’s age, race, 
gender, and income no difference of 
opinion was found.  All these variables 
had no effect on how they perceived 
one’s image and degree of physical 
attractiveness as being an influential 
career determinant.  Also, ordinarily one 
would presume educated individuals 
would emphasize merit and hard work 
over physical attractiveness as most 
important career determinants.  

However, the analysis above showed 
otherwise.  The more educated the 
respondent was, the more he/she viewed 
physical attractiveness as an important 
career determinant.  This might be a 
result of the majority of respondents 
belonging to the same occupation cohort.  
This limitation could be resolved by 
conducting similar research in a 
systematic way that ensures a 
representative sample of the larger 
population.  By doing so, new findings 
may arise or the findings in this study 
can be further supported. 

Although it has limitations, this 
research project presented compelling 
data on how an individual’s perception 
of his or her physical attractiveness is 
viewed as an important career 
determinant.  We live in a youth and 
beauty fixated culture, and some people 
may feel that being qualified is not 
enough anymore.  You have to look 
qualified too.  Such an emphasis has 
been placed on making that first 
impression memorable.  When an 
individual does not get that call back or 
second interview, that person is left to 
feel it could have been more because of 
how you look and what you wore, 
instead of what you’re qualified to do.  
One's image has then changed from a 
part of you to what defines you. 

Overall, whether it’s a new job, a 
promotion, a larger raise, or a new career 
path, in today’s extremely competitive 
business world, people are connecting 
physical attractiveness with career 
success.  One's image has become not 
only a part of life, but has become an 
essential part of career success, and 
physical attractiveness is seen as either 
helping or hindering that success.    



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  78 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

This study’s findings have 
significant value to analyze the role that 
image norms play in the career decisions 
of employees as well as employers.  It 
also exemplifies how certain 
occupational and organizational 
stereotypes are reinforced and continued.  
Therefore the findings above show that 
further analysis on stereotypic role 
expectations within the workplace need 
to be conducted.  By doing so, the extent 

to which this is having an effect on 
potential employees, workplace 
perceptions, and upward mobility of 
current employees can be further 
explored and addressed. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  79 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

REFERENCES 
 
Bartol, Kathryn M. 1980. “Female Managers 

and Quality of Working Life: The 
Impact of Sex-Role Stereotypes.” 
Journal of Occupational Behaviour 
1(3): 205-221. (Retrieved from 
JSTOR on October 7, 2009.)  

Dellinger, Kirsten and Christine L. 
Williams. 1997. “Makeup at Work: 
Negotiating Appearance Rules in the 
Workplace.” Gender and Society 
11(2): 151-177. (Retrieved from 
JSTOR on October 7, 2009.)  

Haskins, Katherine M. and H. Edward 
Ransford. 1999. “The Relationship 
between Weight and Career Payoffs 
among Women.” Sociological 

Forum 14(2):295-318. (Retrieved 
from JSTOR on October 7, 2009.)  

Lerum, Kari. 2004. “Sexuality, Power, and 
Camaraderie in Service Work.” 
Gender and Society 18(6): 756-776. 
(Retrieved from JSTOR on October 
7, 2009.) 

Myrtle P. Bell, Myrtle P. and Mary E. 
McLaughlin and Jennifer M. 
Sequeira. 2002. “Discrimination, 
Harassment, and the Glass Ceiling: 
Women Executives as Change 
Agents.” Journal of Business Ethics 
37(1): 65-76. (Retrieved from 
JSTOR on October 7, 2009.) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  80 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

Appendix 1. Complete Survey Questionnaire 
CONSENT FORM: 

 

Dear Participant: 

You are invited to take part in a research project conducted by Lisett Acevedo, a graduate 
student at California State University, Los Angeles.  In this study we hope to learn more 
about the perceptions individuals hold about the importance of image, personal appearance, 
and physical attractiveness in the workplace.  The survey should only take about 15 to 20 
minutes to complete.  There are no expected risks, discomforts, or inconveniences if you 
select to participate in this research project. There are also no expected medical risks in your 
participation in this research project.  Reports resulting from this study will not identify you 
as a participant.  All information gathered in this study will remain confidential. 

If you have any questions about this research at any time, please contact Professor Dr. 
Hyojoung Kim at (323) 343-5768, or by email at hkim@calstatela.edu. 

 

 

Q1.  Please indicate your gender: 

(1) Male  
(2) Female 

 

Q2.  How old are you?   

_____ years old 
 

Q3.  Please indicate your race? 

(1) White 
(2) African American 
(3) Hispanic/Latino 
(4) Asian 
(5) Other 

Q4.  Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have received?   



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  81 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

(1) Less than High School Graduation 
(2) High School Graduation 
(3) Some College  
(4) University with a Bachelor’s Degree 
(5) Graduate Degree or Higher 

 

Q5.  Which of the following best describes your annual income last year? 

(1) Less than $20,000 
(2) $20,000 – $40,000 
(3) $40,000 – $60,000 
(4) $60,000 – $80,000 
(5) $80,000 – $100,000 
(6) $100,000 or more 

Q6.  Which of the following best describes your political party affiliation? 

(1) Republican 
(2) Democrat 
(3) Independent 
(4) Green Party 
(5) Don’t know 
(6) Other, please specify:__________ 

Q7.  There are many factors that affect one’s career success such as employment and 
promotion.  In your opinion, which of the following factors are more important in 
determining one’s career success.  Please rank them in order of importance with 1 being most 
important and 7 least important: 

 
_____ Age  
_____ Gender  
_____ Race 
_____ Education 
_____ Human capital (such as skills, knowledge) 
_____ Social capital (such as friendships, networks) 
_____ Physical appearance (such as attractiveness) 

Q8.  Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: 

            Physical appearance of an employee is important for a career. 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  82 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

Strongly Agree 

Agree 

Somewhat Agree 

Somewhat Disagree 

Disagree 

Strongly Disagree 

 

Q9.  In your personal opinion, how much more physically attractive do you think you are  
compared to other persons? Please indicate one: 

Very Attractive 

Attractive 

Somewhat Attractive 

Somewhat Unattractive 

Unattractive 

Very Unattractive 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  83 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

Appendix 2: 

 

 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  84 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

 

 

 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo  85 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 



A
T
T
R
A
C
T
IV
E
N
E
SS
 A
N
D
 S
U
C
C
E
SS
 b
y 
L
is
et
t A
ce
ve
do
 

 8
6 

 

 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
 S
O
C
IO
L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS
U
E
 1
: 6
7-
91
) 

T
ab
le
 1
.  
   
   
Su
rv
ey
 Q
ue
st
io
ns
 a
nd
 D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
 S
ta
ti
st
ic
s 
of
 V
ar
ia
bl
es
 U
se
d 
In
 th
e 
A
na
ly
si
s 

 
Su
rv
ey
 Q
ue
st
io
ns
 U
se
d 

R
es
po
ns
e 
C
at
eg
or
ie
s 

F
re
qu
en
cy
 

M
ea
n 

S.
 D
. 

A
bs

ol
ut

e 
C

ar
ee

r 
Im

po
rt

an
ce

 o
f 

Ph
ys

ic
al

 
A

ttr
ac

tiv
en

es
s 

Pl
ea

se
 in

di
ca

te
 y

ou
r l

ev
el

 o
f a

gr
ee

m
en

t w
ith

 
th

e 
fo

llo
w

in
g 

st
at

em
en

t: 

Ph
ys

ic
al

 a
pp

ea
ra

nc
e 

of
 a

n 
em

pl
oy

ee
 is

 
im

po
rt

an
t f

or
 a

 c
ar

ee
r. 

1=
St

ro
ng

ly
 D

is
ag

re
e 

2=
D

is
ag

re
e 

3=
So

m
ew

ha
t D

is
ag

re
e 

4=
So

m
ew

ha
t A

gr
ee

 

5=
 A

gr
ee

 

6=
St

ro
ng

ly
 A

gr
ee

 

 
 

4.
86

 
1.

20
 

R
el

at
iv

e 
C

ar
ee

r 
Im

po
rt

an
ce

 o
f 

Ph
ys

ic
al

 
A

ttr
ac

tiv
en

es
s 

T
he

re
 a

re
 m

an
y 

fa
ct

or
s 

th
at

 a
ff

ec
t o

ne
’s

 c
ar

ee
r 

su
cc

es
s 

su
ch

 a
s 

em
pl

oy
m

en
t a

nd
 p

ro
m

ot
io

n.
  I

n 
yo

ur
 o

pi
ni

on
, w

hi
ch

 o
f t

he
 fo

llo
w

in
g 

fa
ct

or
s 

ar
e 

m
or

e 
im

po
rt

an
t i

n 
de

te
rm

in
in

g 
on

e’
s 

ca
re

er
 

su
cc

es
s.

  P
le

as
e 

ra
nk

 th
em

 in
 o

rd
er

 o
f i

m
po

rt
an

ce
 

w
ith

 1
 b

ei
ng

 m
os

t i
m

po
rt

an
t a

nd
 7

 le
as

t 
im

po
rt

an
t: 

R
an

k 
O

rd
er

:  

1=
L

ea
st

 Im
po

rt
an

t -
  7

=M
os

t 
Im

po
rt

an
t 

 
 

3.
72

 
1.

35
 

Ph
ys

ic
al

 
A

ttr
ac

tiv
en

es
s 

In
 y

ou
r o

pi
ni

on
, h

ow
 m

uc
h 

m
or

e 
ph

ys
ic

al
ly

 
at

tr
ac

tiv
e 

do
 y

ou
 th

in
k 

yo
u 

ar
e 

co
m

pa
re

d 
to

 o
th

er
 

pe
rs

on
s?

 P
le

as
e 

in
di

ca
te

 o
ne

: 

 
 

 
4.

47
 

0.
72

 

G
en

de
r 

Pl
ea

se
 in

di
ca

te
 y

ou
r g

en
de

r:
 

1 
= 

M
al

e 

2 
= 

Fe
m

al
e 

98
 

11
1 

(4
6.

9%
) 

(5
3.

1%
) 

1.
53

 
0.

50
 



A
T
T
R
A
C
T
IV
E
N
E
SS
 A
N
D
 S
U
C
C
E
SS
 b
y 
L
is
et
t A
ce
ve
do
 

 8
7 

 

 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
 S
O
C
IO
L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS
U
E
 1
: 6
7-
91
) 

A
ge

 
H

ow
 o

ld
 a

re
 y

ou
? 

 
 

 
 

30
.6

8 
8.

62
 

A
fr

ic
an

 
A

m
er

ic
an

 
Pl

ea
se

 in
di

ca
te

 y
ou

r r
ac

e?
 

0 
= 

N
ot

 A
fr

ic
an

 A
m

er
ic

an
 

1 
= 

A
fr

ic
an

 A
m

er
ic

an
 

12
9 

40
 

   
   

(6
1.

7%
) 

   
  (

 
19

.1
%

) 

 

0.
23

 
0.

42
 

H
is

pa
ni

c 
Pl

ea
se

 in
di

ca
te

 y
ou

r r
ac

e?
 

0=
N

ot
 H

is
pa

ni
c 

1=
H

is
pa

ni
c 

63
 

10
6 

   
   

(3
0.

1%
) 

   
   

(5
0.

7%
) 

0.
62

 
0.

48
 

A
si

an
 

Pl
ea

se
 in

di
ca

te
 y

ou
r r

ac
e?

 
0=

N
ot

 A
si

an
 

1=
A

si
an

 

15
3 

16
 

(7
3.

2%
) 

(7
.7

%
) 

0.
09

 
0.

29
 

O
th

er
 

Pl
ea

se
 in

di
ca

te
 y

ou
r r

ac
e?

 
0=

N
ot

 O
th

er
 

1=
O

th
er

 

16
2 

7 

   
   

(7
7.

5%
) 

   
   

  
(3

.3
%

) 

 
 

E
du

ca
tio

n 
W

hi
ch

 o
f t

he
 fo

llo
w

in
g 

be
st

 d
es

cr
ib

es
 th

e 
hi

gh
es

t 
le

ve
l o

f e
du

ca
tio

n 
yo

u 
ha

ve
 re

ce
iv

ed
? 

1 
= 

L
es

s 
th

an
 H

ig
h 

Sc
ho

ol
  

2 
= 

H
ig

h 
Sc

ho
ol

 G
ra

du
at

io
n 

3 
= 

So
m

e 
C

ol
le

ge
 

4 55
 

91
 

(1
.9

%
)  

(2
6.

3%
) 

(4
3.

5%
) 

3.
01

 
0.

85
 



A
T
T
R
A
C
T
IV
E
N
E
SS
 A
N
D
 S
U
C
C
E
SS
 b
y 
L
is
et
t A
ce
ve
do
 

 8
8 

 

 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
 S
O
C
IO
L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS
U
E
 1
: 6
7-
91
) 

4 
= 

U
ni

ve
rs

ity
 w

/ B
ac

he
lo

rs
 D

eg
re

e 

5=
G

ra
du

at
e 

D
eg

re
e 

or
 H

ig
he

r 

51
 

7 

(2
4.

4%
)  

(3
.3

%
) 

In
co

m
e 

W
hi

ch
 o

f t
he

 fo
llo

w
in

g 
be

st
 d

es
cr

ib
es

 y
ou

r 
an

nu
al

 in
co

m
e 

la
st

 y
ea

r?
  

1 
=L

es
s 

th
an

 $
20

,0
00

 

2=
$2

0,
00

0-
$4

0,
00

0 

3=
$4

0,
00

0-
$6

0,
00

0 

4=
$6

0,
00

0-
$8

0,
00

0 

5=
$8

0,
00

0-
$1

00
,0

00
 

6=
$1

00
,0

00
 o

r m
or

e 

33
 

50
 

37
 

57
 

29
 

3 

 

(1
5.

8%
) 

(2
3.

9%
) 

(1
7.

7%
) 

(2
7.

3%
) 

(1
3.

9%
) 

(1
.4

%
) 

3.
04

 
1.

35
 

R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

W
hi

ch
 o

f t
he

 fo
llo

w
in

g 
be

st
 d

es
cr

ib
es

 y
ou

r 
po

lit
ic

al
 p

ar
ty

 a
ff

ili
at

io
n?

 
0=

N
ot

 R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

1=
R

ep
ub

lic
an

 

14
4 

47
 

(6
8.

9%
)  

(2
2.

5%
) 

0.
24

 
0.

43
 

 

In
de

pe
nd

en
t 

W
hi

ch
 o

f t
he

 fo
llo

w
in

g 
be

st
 d

es
cr

ib
es

 y
ou

r 
po

lit
ic

al
 p

ar
ty

 a
ff

ili
at

io
n?

 
0=

N
ot

 In
de

pe
nd

en
t 

1=
In

de
pe

nd
en

t 

17
6 

15
 

(8
4.

2%
) 

(7
.2

%
) 

0.
07

 
0.

26
 

O
th

er
 

W
hi

ch
 o

f t
he

 fo
llo

w
in

g 
be

st
 d

es
cr

ib
es

 y
ou

r 
po

lit
ic

al
 p

ar
ty

 a
ff

ili
at

io
n?

 
0=

N
ot

 O
th

er
 

1=
O

th
er

 

18
5 

6 

(8
8.

5%
) 

(2
.9

%
) 

0.
03

 
0.

17
 

  



A
T
T
R
A
C
T
IV
E
N
E
SS
 A
N
D
 S
U
C
C
E
SS
 b
y 
L
is
et
t A
ce
ve
do
 

 8
9 

 

 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
 S
O
C
IO
L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS
U
E
 1
: 6
7-
91
) 

 

T
ab
le
 2
. P
ea
rs
on
’s
 C
or
re
la
ti
on
 C
oe
ff
ic
ie
nt
s 
of
 V
ar
ia
bl
es
 U
se
d 
in
 th
e 
A
na
ly
si
s 

 
2.

 
3.

 
4.

 
5.

 
6.

 
7.

 
8.

 
9.

 
10

. 
11

. 
12

. 
13

. 
14

. 

1.
 A

bs
ol

ut
e 

C
ar

ee
r I

m
po

rt
an

ce
 o

f P
hy

si
ca

l A
ttr

ac
tiv

en
es

s 
.3

04
**

 .2
09

**
 .

05
1 

-.0
91

 -.
03

1 
-.0

11
 

.0
78

 
-.0

22
 

.0
44

 
.0

15
 

.0
34

 -
.0

15
 -.

20
4**

 

2.
 R

el
at

iv
e 

C
ar

ee
r I

m
po

rt
an

ce
 o

f P
hy

si
ca

l A
ttr

ac
tiv

en
es

s 
 

 
.1

16
 -.

12
9 

-.0
96

 -.
01

2 
.0

23
 

-.0
27

 
.0

08
 -.

22
3**

 -
.0

70
 -

.0
92

 -
.0

19
 

-.1
36

 

3.
 P

hy
si

ca
l A

ttr
ac

tiv
en

es
s 

 
 

 .
04

6 
-.2

39
**

 -.
05

5 
.1

68
*  

-.1
23

 
-.1

10
 

.1
58

*  -
.1

32
 -

.1
37

 .
16

0*  
-.0

34
 

4.
G

en
de

r 
 

 
 

-.0
67

 .
04

9 
-.0

24
 

.0
04

 
-.0

53
 

-.0
01

 -
.0

66
 -

.0
39

 -
.0

72
 

.0
52

 

5.
A

ge
 

 
 

 
 .1

64
*  

-.1
35

 
-.0

77
 

.0
92

 
.1

50
*  .5

02
**

 
.1

10
 -

.0
04

 
-.1

17
 

6.
A

fr
ic

an
 A

m
er

ic
an

  
 

 
 

 
 -.

72
2**

 -
.1

80
*  

-.1
16

 -.
29

9**
 

.0
53

 -
.1

48
 

.0
23

 
-.0

25
 

7.
H

is
pa

ni
c 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 -.
41

9**
 -.

27
0**

 .
20

0**
 -

.0
97

 -
.0

35
 -

.0
84

 
.0

82
 

8.
A

si
an

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

-.0
67

 
.1

21
 

.0
40

 
.0

91
 

.0
67

 
-.0

67
 

9.
R

ac
e 

O
th

er
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

-.0
19

 
.0

61
 .2

41
**

 
.0

52
 

-.0
45

 

10
.E

du
ca

tio
n 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 .2
42

**
 .

16
3*  

.0
96

 
.0

22
 

11
.In

co
m

e 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 .3
55

**
 -

.0
28

 
-.0

76
 

12
.R

ep
ub

lic
an

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 -.

16
7*  

-.1
03

 

13
.In

de
pe

nd
en

t 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
-.0

53
 

14
.O

th
er

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

**
. C
or
re
la
ti
on
 is
 s
ig
ni
fi
ca
nt
 a
t t
he
 0
.0
1 
le
ve
l (
2-
ta
ile
d)
. 

*.
 C
or
re
la
ti
on
 is
 s
ig
ni
fi
ca
nt
 a
t t
he
 0
.0
5 
le
ve
l (
2-
ta
ile
d)
. 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo 90 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

Table 3.  
Logistic Regression Analysis of Absolute Career Importance of Physical Attractiveness on 

Selected Variables 
Independent Variables Coef. (s.e.) 
Intercept 1 
Intercept 2 
Intercept 3 
Intercept 4 
Intercept 5 
Physical Attractiveness 
Gender 
Age 
African American 
Hispanic 
Asian 
Education 
Income 
Republican 
Independent 
Other 

-1.764 
0.600 
1.431 
2.967 
4.406 
1.150 

-0.003 
0.007 

-0.660 
-0.384 
0.823 

-0.387 
-0.019 
-0.578 
-0.036 
-1.832 

(1.798) 
(1.560) 
(1.546) 
(1.550) 
(1.573**) 
(0.252**) 
(0.310) 
(0.23) 
(0.810) 
(0.760) 
(0.895) 
(0.207) 
(0.147) 
(0.444) 
(0.608) 
(0.789**) 

Likelihood Ratio chi-square 32.37** 
Nagelkerke R-square 0.21 
Score test for Parallel 
Regression Lines 

54.43 

*p<0.05; **p<0.01 



ATTRACTIVENESS AND SUCCESS by Lisett Acevedo 91 

 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 67-91) 

*p<0.05; **p<0.01 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. 
Logistic Regression Analysis of Relative Career Importance of Physical Attractiveness on 

Selected Variables 
Independent Variables Coef. (s.e.) 
Intercept 1 
Intercept 2 
Intercept 3 
Intercept 4 
Intercept 5 
Intercept 6 
Physical Attractiveness 
Gender 
Age 
African American 
Hispanic 
Asian 
Education 
Income 
Republican 
Independent 
Other 

-2.899 
-1.883 
-0.811 
1.091 
2.185 
3.266 
0.728 

-0.401 
0.007 

-0.956 
-0.631 
-0.420 
-0.756 
0.143 

-0.676 
0.175 

-1.282 

(1.572) 
(1.507) 
(1.497) 
(1.501) 
(1.516) 
(1.551**) 
(0.233**) 
(0.302) 
(0.023) 
(0.796) 
(0.744) 
(0.863) 
(0.209**) 
(0.143) 
(0.439) 
(0.571) 
(0.789) 

Likelihood Ratio chi-square 29.00** 
Nagelkerke R-square 0.18 
Score test for Parallel 
Regression Lines 

45.01 


