Better wealthy
than handsome? Why not both?

In Hamermesh's studies researchers typically are asked to rate the looks of their interview subjects as average, above average or below average. The results are then compared with other variables including pay.

In one relatively well-known study, Hamermesh and co-author Jeff Biddle had four observers (two male and two female) look at pictures of students who graduated from a certain unidentified law school and rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was considered “homely” and 5 was “strikingly handsome or beautiful.”

After averaging out the ratings, the authors found evidence of a “beauty premium” for attorneys that increased with age, particularly for lawyers who graduated from “Law School X” in the 1970s. Five years after graduation, male lawyers with an above-average “beauty rating” earned about 10 percent more than their below-average counterparts. After another 10 years the beauty premium had grown to to 12 percent.

The premium was smaller for lawyers who graduated in the 1980s, a fact the authors speculated might have been due to a tighter job market at the time they graduated.

While Hamermesh said observers generally come to similar conclusions on questions of beauty, some of his research also suggests problems with trying to grade good looks on a curve. In a study of 853 Han Chinese women rated by Chinese researchers in Shanghai, 35 percent were rated above average while only 1 percent were rated below average or ugly.

Research on the correlation between height, weight and wealth tends to be more straightforward because that data can be objectively measured.

One study showed that women who were obese as measured by their body mass index earned wages that were 17 percent lower than women within the recommended weight range for their height, according to the St. Louis Fed summary. The obesity penalty was largest for white women, although white men also suffered a penalty for being fat.

Obesity might affect productivity either by correlating with poor health or a lack of self-confidence, so lower wages might be appropriate, Owyang said. Yet discrimination also seemed to play a role, said the research by Owyang and co-author Kristie Engemann, a senior research associate at the St. Louis Fed.

Another study focused on height found that every inch of extra height is worth about 1.8 percent in additional wages. This height premium appears to be etched in stone relatively early in life. Boys who were taller at age 16 consistently earned more as adults, according to yet another study.

The researchers also cited a survey by journalist Malcolm Gladwell showing that the average chief executive is 3 inches taller than the average man. While a typical American male stands 5-foot-9, Gladwell’s study found that about one-third of CEOs are 6-foot-2.

Owyang said the research on the economic impact of various physical characteristics is interesting but limited and inconclusive.

“The research is difficult because you need the data,” he said. “This kind of data isn't readily available. Census doesn’t tell you whether (people) are attractive or not.”

MORE FROM STOCKS & ECONOMY

Stocks & economy Section Front

Stocks start off the week with a big rally Bernanke: Fed will keep eye on sliding dollar Cost of oil reverses slide, trades near $79 Leaps of faith holding up the stock market Consumer sentiment falls to lowest in 3 months Move over, feds, as locals try stimulus too J.C. Penney's profit drops, outlook brightens Disney CEO hints at successor as profits rise Obama administration faults Senate bank bill U.S. trade gap widens more than expected Stocks & economy Section Front   Add Stocks & economy headlines to your news reader: