Lots of research studies have found that within employment settings, candidates who are attractive are given more preferences over the unattractiveness [Beehr& Gilmore, 1982; Dipboye, Arvey, &Terpstra, 1977; Marlowe, Schneider, & Nelson, 1996]. Dion  demonstrated views on personality traits which showed the dominance of physically attractive people on unattractive people, who lack in several personalities’ attributes. The present study tested this theory but did not find any evidence which can support above mentioned studies in the case of employees but the employers’ results show that there is influence of appearance at the time of interview (H2 and H5-Table 2). Male and female who are attractive are taken as more social, responsive, confident and effective in their everyday life whether there are careers or personal/official relationships [Cash, 1981; Cash, Kehr, Polyson, & Freeman, 1977]. The present study [Table 2: H5] strongly supports that candidates who are confident are successful in getting jobs; confidence along with good communication skills can lead the employees to a higher grade of achievement where even biases like physicalattractiveness and gender differentiation have no impact.
regarding the season of birth. For example, it was demonstrated that there exists a relation between the season of birth and earnings (e.g. Buckles & Hungerman, 2008; Plug, 2001). At the same time, French (2002) showed that physical attractive- ness signi cantly correlated with earnings. Therefore, it is possible that different earnings of participants born in various seasons might be explained with their different physicalattractiveness. Physicalattractiveness has really high in uence on how people are perceived (review: Etcoff, 1999). It is possible that many mecha- nisms might be explained in a similar way.
With respect to short-term partner ratings, we found that the effects of physicalattractiveness were even stronger than they were for long-term partner ratings. This is similar to Buss and Schmitt (1993), who found that physicalattractiveness was more important for short-term mating than for long-term mat- ing. In contrast, although humor production and receptivity boosted the desirability of potential partners, the effects of the humor conditions were generally either smaller than for long- term ratings or they disappeared altogether. For example, we found that humor production was more important to women than receptivity, as the latter only had an influence when pro- duction was high. This effect, however, was smaller than in the case of long-term partner ratings. Furthermore, we did not find interactions between production and gender, or receptivity and gender, in the case of short-term desirability. This is consistent with Bressler et al. (2006) and Hone et al. (2015) who found that sex differences in humor were present only in the case of long-term relationships but not short-term relationships. Find- ing stronger effects of the humor manipulations for long-term mating is inconsistent with the fitness indicator hypothesis, as it predicts that genetic factors should be important in both mating contexts. The findings are also inconsistent with the interest indicator view, as it claims that humor is used to convey inter- est in both long-term and short-term mating contexts. The results are consistent, however, with the encryption hypothesis, which predicts that issues of compatibility should be particu- larly important in long-term relationships, as it is only therein that cooperation on important tasks is likely to be an issue. Figure 4. Men’s mean ratings of physicalattractiveness for attractive
Among the cards that life deals out, innate physical attractive- ness is one that has been shown to make a major difference, both in economic terms (by affecting, e.g., one’s chances of getting a job, a pay raise, or a promotion; Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Ross & Ferris, 1981) and in terms of the attractiveness of potential mates one is able to attract. One impact that physicalattractiveness has not been shown to have, however, is on happiness (Diener, Wolsic, & Fujita, 1995; Noles, Cash, & Winstead, 1985). People seem to adapt to the advan- tages and disadvantages they experience as a result of their physical looks (much as they adapt to many other situations), achieving roughly similar levels of happiness throughout a wide range of attractiveness levels (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999). What types of processes contribute to such hedonic adaptation? TABLE 6
One study examining the impact of physicalattractiveness on teacher evaluations had undergraduate seniors majoring in education as participants. The participants were presented with pictures of teachers and asked to rate the pictures on their level of competence. Contrary to previous findings with children, there was no difference in perceived competence based on attractiveness (Buck & Tiene, 1989). Recently, Riniolo, Johnson, Sherman, and Misso (2006) examined data available on www.ratemyprofessors.com to investigate if professors rated as physically attractive by students received higher student evaluations. The researchers gathered data from four separate universities and matched professors by department and gender. Results indicated that in fact those professors rated as attractive (i.e., “hot”) received higher student evaluations that those professors rated as unattractive. However, when this data were collected, professors were classified into two categories (“hot” or “not hot”) because the website did not provide information as to how many total hot ratings were submitted. This creates an artificial situation where attractiveness has two polar opposites, rather than attractiveness ranging along a continuum.
Objectives: Traditional methods for evaluating aes- thetic perceptions of the teeth have involved panels of people observing photographs, and the person com- menting on the appearance of the teeth generally is aware that his opinion of the dental appearance is being sought. The situation is artificial and may in- volve bias. We propose a novel method for evaluating the effect of dental imperfections on perceptions in which the participant is unaware of participating in a survey and in which his or her opinion is not sought. Rather, involvement in the study betrays the impor- tance of dental aesthetics for the observer. Methods: Starting with a digitally manipulated photograph of a smiling young woman, two portrait photographs A and B were produced in which the only differences were in the dentition revealed by the smile. The two photographs were anonymously posted on an online dating service site covering two large cities in south- western France. During a period of one month, all “hits” on each of the photographs and all attempts to make contact were counted. Results: There was no significant difference between the number of hits on each of the portraits A and B. On the other hand, the ratio of attempts to contact to hits showed a clear dif- ference: the ratio was 4.8 times greater for Portrait A than for Portrait B (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Digital manipulation of a photograph and internet dating sites provide an alternative to traditional question- naires for evaluation of the contribution of dental factors to a person’s physicalattractiveness.
choices. Although when directly asked people put down the importance of physicalattractiveness whilst emphasizing other personality characteristics (Tesser and Brodie, 1971) their behaviour shows a much different picture. Things such as "how much we like someone", "want to see them again", or "how often we ask them out", have been found to be either exclusively, or significantly determined by how physically attractive this someone is (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams and Rottmann, 1966; Brislin and Lewis, 1968; Byrne, Ervin and Lamberth, 1970; Suman, 1992) . Dating behaviour has also been shown to be influenced by 'the date's' appearance. Evidence shows that people want to retain assigned dates who are attractive (Walster et al, 1966) , and also that they actually prefer to date attractive individuals more than less comely ones (Berscheid, Dion, Walster and Walster, 1971; Stroebe, Chester, Insko, Thompson and Layton, 1971). The importance of attractiveness for one's value as a partner is not confined to experimental demonstrations. For instance, we know that those personal advertisements in which the writer describes herself as beautiful, receive the most responses (Lynn and Shurgot,
There were numerous studies carried out to identify the impact of physicalattractiveness and referrals on recruitment process. In the theory ‘what is beautiful is good’, a perception was developed that physicalattractiveness is an attribute that is related to better lives and better personalities [Dion, Berscheid, &Walster, 1972]. More evidence on this stereotype was collected by Tompkins and Boor  when they conducted a study in which students were to evaluate candidates on the basis of the presence of their pictures with their qualifications and experience. It was found out that attractive candidates were evaluated more positively than the unattractive. But some researchers have a different view as well, Alan Feingold  found in his study that there is indeed a very fine line of difference between the personalities of attractive and unattractive people, so it’s not necessary that attractive people are always perceived as good.
operationalized as either hormonal levels or Tanner developmental stages, to the current model, and assess how well this process mediate the observed effects (see Angold et al.1998 for a similar approach to explaining the emergence of the gender gap). More generally, further research is needed to more exactly describe longitudinal variation in the influence of attractiveness on depression. In the current study, I have found that a model of linear increase from ages 12- 28 had superior fit compared to models assuming a static level or quadratic change. However, given that these are only three functional forms out of a larger set of possibilities and both the pubertal development and socialization explanations suggest that the increase in effect size likely plateaus prior to 28, a more detailed examination is called for. Thus, future research on samples with denser repeated observations throughout adolescence could be used to test piecewise models that empirically determine the optimal plateau point. Furthermore, even if the current functional form is robust and it is found that the effect does, in fact, increase more or less linearly from ages 12 to 28, surely the effect does not continue to increase indefinitely. Longitudinal data covering a longer period of the life course will be necessary to extend current knowledge into later life stages.
Consistent with attractiveness stereotypes in other domains, studies have shown that students rate attractive teachers as more competent, more motivating, and better at stimulating learning (Chaikin, Gillen, Derlega, Heinen & Wilson, 1978). A professor’s level of attractiveness has also shown to influence students’ level of engagement and learning outcomes (Gurung & Vespia, 2007; Riniolo, Johnson, Sherman, & Misso, 2006). That is, compared to unattractive professors, students who have attractive professors are likely to exhibit higher levels of engagement in class and are more likely to earn better grades as a result. An experimental study conducted by Westfall (2015) demonstrated that, with all else being equal, students assigned to a condition with an attractive teacher performed better on a recall test than students assigned to a condition with an unattractive teacher.
Kniffin and Wilson (2004) conducted three naturalistic studies and provided evidence for the importance of the differences in impression formation after familiarity, as well as non-physical factors influencing perceptions of physicalattractiveness. These researchers found that non-physical factors such as ratings of familiarity, respect, liking, and intelligence, had a significant influence on the perception of physicalattractiveness (Kniffin & Wilson, 2004). More recent research by Zhang, Zong, Zhong, and Kou (2014) had participants rate the attractiveness of facial stimuli without any information about their personalities, then rate the same faces two weeks later with positive information, no information, or negative information paired with the facial stimuli. Results indicated support for a “what is good is beautiful” effect in which positive personality influenced increased positive ratings of attractiveness during the second round of rating the same stimuli. Similarly, research has found that group membership can taint perceptions of attractiveness, with followers of a particular group rating their own group leaders as more physically attractive than leaders of competing groups (Kniffin, Wansink, Griskevicius, & Wilson, 2014).
Physicalattractiveness is known to be a significant cue in a number of rapid social judgments, with one of the most important being trustworthiness. But how does attractiveness influence our perceptions? The author predicted that increased smiling intensity would increase ratings of perceived attractiveness and perceived trustworthiness. The current study supported the hypothesis in that increase smiling intensity did increase ratings of attractiveness from closed mouth to open mouth smiles. However, when smiling intensity reached extreme levels, ratings of attractiveness dropped significantly. Individuals were considered significantly less attractive when they exhibited the extreme smile as opposed to either the closed mouth or open mouth smile.
Research on the halo effect has found a strong relationship between a high attractiveness rating of an individual and positive evaluations of that individual (Kaplan, 1974). However, other research suggests that an individual may use others’ perception of him or her as a guide to how they behave (Bucklow, 1960). For example, an individual may be likely to deviate from the norm because their attractiveness, or lack thereof, as already determined by how they are perceived (Coren, 1988). Research suggests that a person may intentionally confirm the bias against him or her (Voncken & Dijk, 2013). For example, an unattractive person may violate social norms simply because he or she believes that is what others are expecting, thus confirming that the negative expectations of others carry no social risk (Talamas, Mavor, & Perrett, 2016).
Previous studies on the impact of amenities on cities population growth concluded that climatic amenities and natural features are dominant factors in explaining this growth, Gleaser et al (2001). Berry-Cullen and Levitt found that the relationship between crime and population growth is strongly negative. Rappaport (1999) found that spending on schools predicts city growth. Andersson and Andersson (2006) show that physical infrastructures, such as cultural institutions, architecture and other historical amenities are key factors explaining the difference in attractiveness among European capital cities. Kahsai et al (2013 show that historical and cultural amenity have a positive effect on population density growth inside US counties. Spatial pattern of population density in Tunisian coastal cities is affected by basic amenities; hotels that represent the proxy for leisure amenities in cities have no effect on density pattern.
The set of 7 flowering plant species (Anethum graveolens, Calendula officinalis, Centaurea cyanus, Fagopyrum esculen- tum, Foeniculum vulgare, Tagetes patula and Vicia faba) was compared for their attractiveness to natural enemies such as ladybeetles (Coccinellidae), hoverflies (Syrphidae), ichneumon wasps (Ichneumonidae) and predatory bugs (Orius spp.) during the years 2008–2010. The trial was held in an organic open field located at the Faculty of Horticulture of Mendel University in Brno, Lednice, Czech Republic. The software Canoco (RDA analysis) was used in order to see the relations between plant and insect communities. Flowering plants A. graveolens, C. cyanus, C. officinalis, F. vulgare and F. esculentum were found to be the most attractive for the evaluated beneficial insects. The most abundant beneficial insects were hoverflies (56 2008 , 154 2009 , 1324 2010 ) and ladybeetles (65 2008 , 116 2009 , 511 2010 ) followed by predatory bugs (14 2008 , 47 2009 , 138 2010 ) and ichneumon wasps (20 2008 , 14 2009 , 82 2010 ).
The framework model can be used effectively within a long-term strategy group and drive insights into future decisions on manufacturing locations. The model provides a utility preference as well as the ability to perform sensitivities on the results. The results of our modeling show China, India, and Mexico are currently the top ranked countries for manufacturing attractiveness. These three markets hold the highest utility scores throughout sensitivity analysis on the labor rate attribute weight rating, highlighting the strength and potential of manufacturing in China, India, and Mexico. The framework model supports the narrowing of manufacturing location alternatives to a short list of country candidates employing a structured framework which utilizes more attributes than just labor rates.
It is interesting to note that most published studies give important prominence in their analyses to attractiveness factors, such as the variable number of searches over time using the term bitcoin in Google Web Search. In the early years of Bitcoin consolidation, tests based on vector autoregressive and vector error correction method- ologies indicated that the amount of searches on Google and Wikipedia had a strong temporal association with the price curve, i.e., that public interest in increasing know- ledge about the asset ’ s operation was followed by the increase in its price (Buchholz et al. 2012; Kristoufek 2013; Kristoufek 2015). However, with the subsequent consolida- tion of the currency and the population’s greater knowledge concerning Bitcoin’s oper- ation, the attractiveness factor has increasingly failed to have the same relevance as before (Ciaian et al. 2016a; Hayes 2017) even though attractiveness is still a valuable variable for pricing analysis.