Der „Schönheits-Bias“ in der Dienstleistungsbranche ist unbeständig und geht manchmal nach hinten los. Wie Menschen Männer bewerten, hängt mehr von der Attraktivität ab als bei Frauen. Kunden haben möglicherweise höhere Erwartungen an attraktive Mitarbeiter, was zu größerer Enttäuschung führt, wenn etwas schief geht.

I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://www.emerald.com/jstp/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/JSTP-05-2024-0128/1254337/What-is-beautiful-is-not-all-good-a-meta-analysis

From the linked article:

**The ‘beauty bias’ in the service industry is inconsistent and sometimes backfires**, major new study finds

A new comprehensive analysis of over 50 years of research finds that while a service provider’s physical attractiveness does have a moderately positive effect on customer evaluations, this “beauty premium” is highly inconsistent and can sometimes even lead to negative outcomes. The research, which synthesized data from dozens of previous studies, suggests that the widely held belief in a universal benefit for attractive employees is an oversimplification. This work was published in the Journal of Service Theory and Practice.

The analysis first confirmed that, on average, there is a positive relationship between a service provider’s physical attractiveness and positive service outcomes. However, the variability in this effect was substantial. The results indicated that in future studies, the effect could range from slightly negative to moderately positive, showing that the beauty premium is not a universal rule. The findings suggest that context plays a significant role in whether an employee’s appearance helps or hurts a customer’s experience.

The analysis found that the effect of physical attractiveness was actually weaker for female service providers. “It appeared that men’s evaluations are driven more by their physical attractiveness, and the effect that attractiveness has is not on their actual performance, but on their perceived performance,” she continued. “So **how people evaluate men relies more on attractiveness than it does for women**. That was a little bit surprising.”

The study also confirmed that physical attractiveness can become a liability during service failures. “For example, if I had a bad experience at a restaurant and the waiter was attractive, I’m going to have a worse evaluation of the organization than if they were not attractive,” Ellis Chefor said. “There are negative consequences of having attractive people, especially when there’s some kind of service failure.” This happens because **customers may have higher expectations for attractive employees, leading to greater disappointment when things go wrong**.

It’s interesting, but I’m certain no one would trade in their beauty privilege because of these “downsides”

Noticeably attractive men tend to be seen as a rarer event so maybe that’s part of it?  I realise that’s a potential can of worms.