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