Shorter Men and Obese Women Earn $ 1,000 Less Per Year Than Taller, Thinner People, Study Finds

[ad_1]

Short men and obese women earn up to $ 1,000 (£ 700) less per year than their taller, slimmer counterparts, according to a new study on body shape and pay.

This is evidence of a long-suspected “beauty premium” that suggests physical attractiveness demands higher value in the job market, according to lead author Suyong Song of the University of Iowa.

The researchers looked at data from 2,383 volunteers, including whole-body scans and information on family income and gender.

They found that for men earning more than $ 70,000 (£ 50,000) per year, a one-centimeter increase in height was worth $ 1,000 (£ 700) of additional income per year.

For women earning the same amount, every one point drop in BMI was worth an additional $ 1,000 (£ 700) per year on their paycheck, the researchers found.

The authors say it shows the importance of accurately measuring body shapes when it comes to creating public policies aimed at reducing discrimination and prejudice.

Short men and obese women earn up to $ 1,000 (£ 700) less per year than their taller, leaner counterparts, new body shape and salary study finds

The study found that among men earning more than $ 70,000 (£ 50,000) per year, a one-centimeter increase in height was worth $ 1,000 (£ 700) of additional income per year (stock image)

WHAT IS THE JOB BEAUTY BONUS?

Researchers say there is a “beauty premium” in the job market.

This is where employers value the attractiveness of employees when determining salary and hiring.

A University of Iowa study found that taller men and thinner women earned up to £ 700 more per year than shorter men and fatter women.

Other studies have shown that women who wear makeup are considered more trustworthy than women who don’t.

Although a 2018 University of Massachusetts study found that people perceived as “very unattractive” earn more than their prettier peers.

This was likely due to the fact that ugly people were less open to new experiences and more likely to engage in their work, said the team behind the research.

A 2006 study by Wesleyan University found that employers believed beautiful people were more productive even when interviewed only over the phone.

This suggests that the confidence that can come from being beautiful allows people to present themselves better even when they are not visible.

“I’m curious whether or not there is a physical attractiveness premium in labor market outcomes,” Song told PsyPost of the idea behind the study.

One of the problems with previous studies is that they rely on self-reported body measurements or on errors in the way the body is measured.

“Most of the previous studies often defined physical appearance based on subjective opinions based on polls,” Song said.

He said a key challenge was also defining body shapes from these body measurements, as the simple self-reported answers were too simple.

To overcome this problem, the team turned to data collected by the Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometric Resource (CAESAR) project conducted by the US Air Force from 1998 to 2000.

Along with detailed demographic information, body measurements taken with a tape measure, and caliper body measurements, it included 3D scans of the entire body.

These analyzes allowed the researchers to feed data from 2,383 individuals into a machine learning algorithm to identify physical characteristics and find patterns.

“The results showed that there is a statistically significant relationship between physical appearance and family income and that these associations differ by gender,” Song told PsyPost.

“In particular, a man’s stature has a positive impact on family income, while a woman’s obesity has a negative impact on family income.

The data uncovered through the machine learning study revealed specific trends.

“An increase in height of one centimeter is associated with an increase of about $ 998 in family income for a man earning $ 70,000 in median family income,” the team reported in the article published in PLOS One.

For women, “a one-unit decrease in obesity is associated with an increase of about $ 934 in family income for a woman earning $ 70,000 in family income.”

“The results show that the physical attractiveness premium continues to exist and that the relationship between body shapes and family income is heterogeneous by gender,” Song continued.

“Our results also underline the importance of correctly measuring body shapes to provide adequate public policies aimed at improving health care and reducing discrimination and prejudice in the labor market.”

They used machine learning to examine data from 2,383 volunteers, including full-body scans and information on family income and gender.

The team suggested that awareness of the existence of this form of discrimination should be promoted in the workplace and addressed through training.

They also say mechanisms to minimize bias across the hiring and promotion processes should be encouraged, including blind interviews where the hiring manager does not see the candidate during the interview process.

There are limitations, as the dataset only includes family income rather than individual income – so other factors could play into the income disparity.

This is evidence of a long-suspected “beauty premium” that suggests physical attractiveness demands higher value in the job market, according to lead author Suyong Song of the University of Iowa.

“This opens up additional channels through which physical appearance could affect family income,” Song explained.

“In this study, we identified the combined association between body shapes and family income across the labor market and the marriage market.

“Thus, further investigation with a new survey of individual income would be an interesting direction for future research.”

The results were published in the journal PLOS One.

OBESITY: ADULTS WITH A BMI OVER 30 ARE CONSIDERED AS OBES

Obesity is defined as an adult with a BMI of 30 or more.

A healthy person’s BMI – calculated by dividing weight in kg by height in meters, and the answer by height again – is between 18.5 and 24.9.

In children, obesity is defined as being in the 95th percentile.

Percentiles compare young people to others of the same age.

For example, if a three-month-old baby is in the 40th percentile for weight, that means 40 percent of three-month-old babies weigh as much or less than that baby.

About 58 percent of women and 68 percent of men in the UK are overweight or obese.

The condition costs the NHS around £ 6.1bn, out of its roughly £ 124.7bn budget, each year.

This is due to obesity increasing a person’s risk of a number of life-threatening conditions.

These conditions include type 2 diabetes, which can cause kidney disease, blindness, and even limb amputations.

Research suggests that at least one in six hospital beds in the UK is occupied by a patient with diabetes.

Obesity also increases the risk of heart disease, which kills 315,000 people each year in the UK, making it the leading cause of death.

Carrying dangerous amounts of weight has also been linked to 12 different cancers.

This includes the breast, which affects one in eight women at some point in her life.

In children, research suggests that 70 percent of obese youth have high blood pressure or high cholesterol, which puts them at risk for heart disease.

Obese children are also much more likely to become obese adults.

And if children are overweight, their obesity in adulthood is often more severe.

In the UK, up to one in five children start school overweight or obese, rising to one in three by the age of 10.

[ad_2]

Source link