Abstract

While there already is a huge body of research examining the advantages and disadvantages of physical attractiveness in social and economic decisions, little research has been made to explore the role of individual differences in social decision-making with regard to beauty. To close this scientific gap, we conducted a multiparadigm online study (N = 210; 52% females) in which participants were asked to make decisions in four different economic games facing differently attractive counterparts. Additionally, the personality trait agreeableness was assessed to test for individual differences in decision-making. In exploratory analyses, we also assessed which facet of agreeableness is the most appropriate to predict individual differences in the various economic games. In the study, we were able to replicate the finding of a beauty premium and a plainness penalty but did not find any support for the idea of a beauty penalty. Furthermore, evidence for an opposite-sex advantage was found, which was greater when men were facing women than the other way around. While agreeableness as an overall trait influenced decision making across various paradigms, interactions of distinct facets of agreeableness with the partners’ attractiveness remain heterogeneous and ambiguous. This underlines the importance of integrating the specificity of certain traits in experimental research and the necessity of combining them with different social situations.

Highlights

  • As agreeableness was found to be a significant predictor of cooperation in a Public Goods Dilemma (Volk et al, 2011) and in a Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD; Kagel & McGee, 2014), we focus on the personality construct agreeableness and its facets

  • We found that individuals with high trait agreeableness offered more money to their interaction partners (p < 0.001, β = 2.11, 2 Excluding homosexual subjects (N = 14), the significant effects in the Trust Game (TG), Ultimatum Game (UG), and PD did not change

  • We found no main effect of attractiveness which could explain the absence of a beauty penalty as well

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This is the quintessence of many years of research, as physically attractive individuals are expected to be more intelligent, benevolent and competent (Eagly et al, 1991; Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al, 2000; Shinada & Yamagishi, 2014a) and are more popular than unattractive individuals (Boyatzis et al, 1998). Hamermesh and Biddle (1993) found an income gap of 5% between the highly and moderately attractive workers, an advantage for handsome laborers they called “beauty premium”. Evidence for a “plainness penalty” was found, indicating 7 to 10% less earnings for unattractive individuals compared with average-looking ones. The terms “beauty premium” often refers to both monetary and interpersonal advantages a person enjoys solely based on his or her attractiveness, while the “plainness penalty” refers to the disadvantages a person faces due to his or her unattractiveness. The existence of a beauty premium was supported by similar results that

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call