Pretty privilege in the workplace is something many people may have witnessed over their careers, or at least heard others talk about. And there’s a rich history of research going back decades that seemingly confirms what everyone is already thinking. Namely, that being good-looking not only opens more doors, but also translates into more pay and respect.
One study found that conventionally attractive male candidates are “significantly more likely” to receive an interview callback than average-looking men. Meanwhile, another study found that the “halo effect” of being attractive can earn you $19,945 more per year than average-looking workmates. It’s also been shown that attractive workers are afforded 10 to 20% higher “professional competence,” being viewed as “good,” “smart” and “trustworthy” purely due to good genetics.
One of the earliest and most influential analyses of pretty privilege is the What is beautiful is good study. It involved showing 60 students photographs of attractive, average and unattractive individuals. The students were then asked to rate each person on various personality traits. The study found that participants projected a “cloud of positivity” onto the attractive photos.
The students consistently rated the attractive people as more likely to possess desirable personalities, to be better spouses and hold more prestigious jobs. The study concluded that this was due to a cognitive shortcut. Specifically, the brain assumes that because someone has one positive trait (beauty), they must possess others, like kindness, intelligence and stability.
In his 1985 book The Physical Attractiveness Phenomenon, Gordon Patzer explored how humans are psychologically conditioned to respond more favourably to attractive people. He argued that physical attractiveness is a primary “informational cue” that influences all subsequent information we receive about a person. In the workplace, this leads to a “halo effect” where an attractive person is subconsciously perceived as more disciplined and capable.
Patzer highlighted that attractive people are consistently rated higher in “intellectual competence” and “social power.” This judgement is made even when there is no evidence of their actual work output. Meanwhile, he said that unattractive workers are often viewed negatively. Their mistakes are more likely to be viewed as “evidence of incompetence” rather than simple errors.
A 2006 study revealed that it takes just 100 milliseconds for people to look at someone’s face and form an impression of their trustworthiness, competence and attractiveness. These instantaneously formed biases don’t change during subsequent interactions with someone, but rather we become “more confident” in them.
Meanwhile, a 1998 study found that once the brain makes a snap judgement (e.g., “this person looks lazy”), it begins to “filter” all future information. This is known as a confirmation bias. For instance, a manager may notice the one time an employee arrived to work five minutes late. However, their bias will see them subconsciously ignore the four times they stayed an hour late.
Some have argued that these snap judgements that lead to pretty privilege in the workplace are a byproduct of “human evolutionary history.” A 1993 study found that people judge attractiveness based on two factors: facial symmetry and averageness (i.e. how much a face conforms to the average face).
The researchers argued that facial symmetry acts as a reliable cue for developmental stability and genetic health. It signals that an individual possesses an immune system robust enough to withstand environmental stressors. Similarly, a face that reflects the “average” of thousands of others suggests a balanced genetic makeup that has successfully survived environmental pressures over generations.
In a workplace setting, these ancient biological triggers translate into a subconscious “halo effect.” We are evolutionarily primed to view an attractive, symmetrical peer as more resilient, energetic, and high-functioning.
These studies seem to confirm that in the workplace and elsewhere, humans are hardwired to make snap judgements about people based on their attractiveness. They explain why people are judged for their attractiveness. But how does pretty privilege in the workplace actually benefit conventionally attractive people?
A recent US study asked workers about pretty privilege in the workplace. It found that employees who considered themselves “extremely attractive” took home $19,945 more per year than self-described unattractive workers. 33% of respondents considered themselves extremely attractive (equating to a 9 or 10/10 in attractiveness). Interestingly, 71% of CEOs rated themselves in this tier. In fact, 99.8% of CEOs rated their attractiveness at a 7 or above.
An Australian study found that men with “above-average” looks earned roughly 22% more than their more average-looking counterparts. Meanwhile, male workers with “below-average” looks earned 26% less than the average. The study claimed that handsome men are subconsciously ascribed traits like leadership, health and authority, which translates into higher salaries and faster promotions.
On social media, many workers have told of their personal experiences with pretty privilege in the workplace. Commenters on the r/Work subreddit agreed that the “halo effect is real,” creating a workplace where meritocracy is “in name only” because of ingrained “visual biases.”
One contributor described that they are treated poorly as an “unattractive woman,” while her more attractive colleagues “can get away with murder.” She shared an example where an attractive coworker attached the wrong documents to a job, causing a significant ordering error. Yet, the person responsible for organising the job actually “apologised to her for not double checking her work.”
Another user shared the frustration of having her contributions ignored until she changed her appearance. She noted that only after “dropping the necklines and glamming it up” did management suddenly decide she had “important viewpoints.”
For women, making the effort to look attractive is often viewed as mandatory in the workplace. One study found that nearly all of the salary advantage women received from being attractive was actually due to self-presentation behaviors, like wearing makeup and styling their hair.
This is known as the “makeup tax.” Women are not just judged on their features, but on their willingness to spend time and money on a polished appearance. The study found that well-groomed women earned significantly more than their less-groomed but otherwise “attractive” counterparts.
Failing to live up to this expectation can result in women not being considered for specific roles. This was the case for Melissa Weaver, a 30-year-old New York-based HR professional, who went viral in 2024. She posted a TikTok about her experience interviewing for a vice president role at a tech company. Ms. Weaver said that her professional experience aligned “perfectly” with the role. However, during the video interview, the recruiter was “concerned that I hadn’t put enough effort in my appearance,” Ms. Weaver said in her TikTok.
She said that she had attended the interview in a “nice top, blazer, some earrings,” but had not put on any makeup. It was this omission that Ms. Weaver felt the recruiter was alluding to. “Does wearing makeup, for women…make it seem like they aren’t putting in as much effort…into the job,” she asked her TikTok viewers.
Another example of the expectation for women to wear makeup is the story of London waitress Jahnayde Henry. In 2023, the 24-year-old filed a sexual discrimination claim against her employer. Ms. Henry resigned from a restaurant after just five shifts, due to bullying by deputy manager Joanne Huang.
A UK employment tribunal heard that Ms. Huang was a strict manager who demanded “100%” from her staff. While other critical remarks were made, including calling Ms. Henry’s voice ‘bland’, the tribunal focused on one specific exchange at the start of a shift. Ms. Huang told Ms. Henry she looked “tired and unpresentable” and instructed that next time she “should wear make-up.”
Following her resignation, Ms. Henry sued for race discrimination, racial harassment and sexual harassment. The tribunal dismissed all race-related claims. It also ruled that simply saying an employee looks tired is not gender-specific. However, the instruction to wear makeup was ruled as a clear instance of sexual harassment. This was because in the vast majority of cases such an instruction targets female employees.
On the other side of the coin, those who benefit from pretty privilege in the workplace often say that it comes at the cost of their professional credibility. The aforementioned US study highlighted that 68% of “extremely attractive” individuals admitted to downplaying their looks in order to be taken more seriously. Meanwhile, the Australian study found that female employees were forced to incur a “competence penalty.” It argued that while many benefit from pretty privilege, it was often neutralised by what the researchers termed the “dumb-blonde” stereotype.
The study found that while attractiveness helps a woman get an initial interview, it does not translate into a linear salary increase the way it does for men. This is because of a pervasive, subconscious stereotype that beauty and brains are mutually exclusive for women. In high-skill or technical roles, participants in the study often rated attractive women as lower in “intellectual competence” compared to their average-looking female peers.
The study also noted that the “beauty premium” for women is often undercut by workplace social dynamics, which men rarely experience. It found that highly attractive women can face a “likability penalty” from female managers or peers. The study suggests that if a female supervisor perceives a subordinate as a competitive threat to their own status or “mating market” value, they may provide fewer mentorship opportunities or harsher performance reviews.
In male-dominated fields like finance, engineering and law, the “dumb-blonde” stereotype is at its peak. In these sectors, being conventionally attractive can lead colleagues to assume the woman was hired for her “aesthetic labour” rather than her expertise. The study found that in these environments, attractive women are often socially isolated or treated as “ornamental.” This prevents them from being assigned the important projects that can get them promoted.
On r/Work, some commenters spoke about how pretty privilege can be a “double-edged sword” that can lead to social isolation or being treated as a “joke.” One engineer noted that in male-dominated fields, women who appear feminine and attractive are frequently “perceived as being less intelligent.” Commenters also highlighted the “jealousy” of workmates. One commenter described the “rampant” nature of “harassment, stalking, and jealousy” directed at beautiful women. They said that the success of attractive workers can often be dismissed by others who “assume it’s because you’re hot.”
Another attractive worker told of how a colleague consistently gave “sly digs” about their appearance, seemingly in an attempt to “humble” them. These stories paint a picture of a workplace where “pretty privilege” is a “double edged sword” that can lead to social isolation or being treated as a “joke” by the rest of the team.
All of these studies and personal anecdotes suggest that pretty privilege in the workplace is very much real. But is it actually legal for an employer to treat employees differently based on their physical attractiveness? Australian workplace laws, primarily the Fair Work Act 2009 and state-based anti-discrimination acts, do not explicitly list “physical attractiveness” as a protected attribute. However, the demand for “attractiveness” or “grooming” often acts as a proxy for protected attributes like gender, age or race.
When an employer enforces a “beauty standard,” they risk claims of direct or indirect sex discrimination. For instance, requiring female staff to wear makeup or high heels while having no such requirement for men. Under the law, if a requirement or practice disadvantages one gender more than another and is not a “genuine occupational qualification,” it may be deemed unlawful.
Read more: Physical Features Discrimination
Workplace bias can take many forms. Pretty privilege in the workplace is not itself a specific legal category. However, decisions about hiring, promotion, discipline or dismissal can cross the line into unlawful conduct when they are linked to protected attributes such as gender, age, race or other workplace rights.
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives help employees across Australia with Fair Work unfair dismissal claims, general protections matters, workplace discrimination issues, and sexual harassment claims. If you have been treated unfairly, sidelined for promotions, or pushed out of your job due to discrimination, you may be eligible to seek compensation through the Fair Work Commission.
Your initial consultation is free and private, and we offer a no win, no fee service. Strict deadlines apply for Fair Work Commission claims, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a private and complimentary consultation.
