Regrettably, economists are not known for their good looks. What they are know for is the ability to rationally weigh competing alternatives in order to determine the best quantitative choice. So this new research from Daniel Hamermesh may come as somewhat of a surprise. Hamermesh analyzed elections of the American Economic Association to look for evidence of bias towards more attractive candidates for officer positions. He looked at data from 1966-2004, during which time all candidates had a small personal photo distributed with their bio prior to elections. Here’s what he found: among those judged to have above-average beauty (by a representative group of grad students), 54.8% won, while those with below-average beauty won only 45.2% of the time. Surprisingly, beauty did not seem to provide any advantage to female candidates, but was a significant factor for male candidates. This is likely due to the distinct gender advantage women already held in the elections — they were elected 74% of the time regardless of looks. This is an interesting addition to the existing body of research on beauty and the labor market, which I’ll review more of in due time.

Read more: Changing Looks and Changing “Discrimination”: The Beauty of Economists

Via Marginal Revolution