The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on the Chance that
One Gets Selected to Cooperate With in the Netherlands
Name and student number: Nandi A. Oud, 10002425 Programme: Economie en Bedrijfskunde Track: Finance and Organization Name supervisor: Thomas Buser
Date: 17-02-2014
Abstract
Biddle and Hamermesh (1994) found that plain people earn less than people of average looks, who earn less than the good-looking. This research investigates the influence of physical attractiveness on the chance that one gets selected to work or cooperate with in the
Netherlands. It also investigates if there are any gender specific effects in this selection. This hypothesis are tested with a survey. The most important results from this survey are that people prefer to cooperate with attractive people and people attribute overall more positive character traits to attractive people. The gender specific effect is not clear.
1. Introduction
By the Dutch constitution it is prohibited to discriminate people because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, physical, mental or intellectual disability (Art.1 GW). But
discrimination is still very prevalent. According to the CBS (2012), in 2011 there where 6794 people who reported they were a victim of discrimination in the Netherlands. If people think about discrimination they usually don’t think about discrimination based on physical
attractiveness or based on an interaction between physical attractiveness and gender.
Nevertheless, researchers in the field of psychology have studied this for a long time. Cann, Siegfried and Pearce already studied this subject in 1981. They found that sex of subject and attractiveness did affect the hiring decision, with male and attractive applicants being
preferred in hiring decisions.
It is important to investigate this subject from the perspective of organization
economics because of the implications it has in this field. If this kind of discrimination exists, it is very important that for example managers, personnel selectors and judges are aware of it. Also, if this kind of discrimination exists, our constitution about discrimination is clearly incomplete. In organizations, people often have to work together to reach the objectives of the organization. Therefore this research investigates the influence of attractiveness on the chance that one gets selected to work or cooperate with in the Netherlands. It also investigates if there are any gender specific effects in this selection.
At first, there was a pilot created with four different digitally created faces. The four faces are an attractive female, an unattractive female, an attractive male and an unattractive male. This pilot is used to test if the faces did really differ in attractiveness. After significant results for the pilot, the faces where used to do a survey. The most important results are stated here. People prefer to cooperate with attractive people and people attribute overall more positive character traits to attractive people. The gender specific effect is not clear.
First, the related literature is discussed. Second, the research method is explained. Thereafter the results are presented. At last the research method and results will be discussed and there will be reached a conclusion. In the remainder the reference list and appendix can be found.
2. Related Literature
Schwab (1986) says that according to neoclassical economists there are two different types of discrimination, statistical and taste discrimination. If people use statistical discrimination they
think that a certain group performs worse than the other group, on average. This happens for example when only job applicants with a college degree are hired. Taste discrimination happens for example when people don’t want to work with black people, despite black people will not perform worse on the job than white people.
Many researchers have investigated the role of physical attractiveness in social situations. Andreoni and Petrie (2008) found for example a beauty premium in their public goods game, even though beautiful people contribute, on average, no more or less than others. This is taste discrimination. Players in that public goods game also seemed to expect beautiful people to be more cooperative, and they found a substantial benefit to being male. Belot, Bhaskar and van de Ven (2012) found that unattractive players are substantially more likely to be eliminated by their peers in the prisoner’s dilemma stage of a TV game show, even though this is costly. Solnick and Schweitzer (1999) did an ultimatum game experiment. They found that attractive people were offered more, but more was demanded of them. Men were also offered more, and less was demanded of them. So according to the foregoing literature, in social situations, there is a substantial benefit of being attractive and being male.
Many researchers have also investigated the role of physical attractiveness in the labor market. Biddle and Hamermesh (1994) found for example that plain people earn less than people of average looks, who earn less than the good-looking. Mobius and Rosenblat (2006) found a sizable beauty premium in their experimental labor market. Shannon and Stark (2003) investigated the effect of beardedness and attractiveness on personnel selection. They found that the level of attractiveness of the pictures significantly affected the evaluation of the application. But Watkins and Johnston (2000) found that the level of attractiveness of pictures only affected the evaluation of the application when the application was mediocre instead of high quality. Tews, Stafford and Zhu (2009) found that attractiveness does have an influence on employment suitability ratings but is valued less than general mental ability and
conscientiousness. So in the labor market, there is a substantial benefit of being attractive, although other characteristics can be more valuable for people.
Based on the foregoing literature it is expected that attractive people are more likely to be selected to work or cooperate with. If we include gender this hypothesis changes.
According to Andreoni and Petrie (2008) and Solnick and Schweitzer (1999) there is a benefit of being male. However, other researchers found results that correspond with Darwin’s evolution theory. Luxen and Van de Vijver (2006) did research that is comparable to this research. They investigated the influence of attractiveness on the chance that one get’s hired. They used pictures to vary attractiveness. It turned out that participants used intrasexual
competition and intersexual selection. Intersexual selection holds that people show a
preference for attractive opposite-sex people. Intrasexual competition holds that women show a preference for unattractive women. Agthe, Spörrle, and Maner, (2010) found similar results in their scholarship-applicant experiment. The literature about the gender effect is mixed; therefore it is interesting to investigate this.
This research improves upon other research because the competition-effect is less clear. When applicants get selected it’s a competition, but after they are hired, they often have to work together. In this research, the emphasis is on cooperation. Furthermore, in this
research three things are investigated at the same time, it investigates the influence of attractiveness on the chance that one gets selected to work or cooperate with in the
Netherlands. It also investigates if there are any gender specific effects in this selection. And it investigates if there are more positive character traits attributed to attractive people. In the next section, the research method will be explained.
3. Method
3.1 Pilot
In the survey, four digitally created faces are used. Namely, an attractive male, an attractive male, an unattractive female and an attractive female. Of course it is important to test if this faces can really be labeled as attractive and unattractive. Therefore a pilot is first created. The digital faces are created on http://flashface.ctapt.de/. I first created an attractive male face. Then I varied the facial characteristics of this face to create an unattractive male face. The same is done for the female face. Of course, it was mine opinion that the faces were attractive or unattractive, it was therefore important to also ask other people what they found of the four faces. So I spread this four faces on Facebook among friends, family and colleagues. They rated on a scale from one to seven how attractive they found the four faces. There were twenty males who participated in this pilot, and 29 females. To statistically test if the faces differed in attractiveness, the sign-rank test was used. The pilot can be found in appendix 7.1.
3.2 Survey
With the faces of the pilot, a survey could be created. At the beginning of the survey there was an introduction: ‘I am doing research for my bachelor thesis. Could you therefore answer the questions in this survey honestly? Fill in the round at the good answer. The answers are completely anonymous. Thank you! You can hand in the survey in the break or at the end of the lecture.’ Thereafter was a little story: ‘Imagine that you need to do a project with five students that lasts a year. You are the group leader and you only need one person to make
your group complete. You only see the pictures and average school grades of the students you can choose.’ The introduction and story were in Dutch because the survey was handed out to Dutch students only. The survey was handed out in the microeconomics lecture of first-year economics and business UVA students.
There were two surveys developed, the ‘treatment seven’ and the ‘treatment eight’ survey. In the treatment seven survey the attractive faces had an average school grade of seven, and the unattractive faces had an average school grade of eight. In the treatment eight surveys all faces had an average school grade of eight. There were 53 males and 43 females who filled in the treatment seven surveys. There were 44 males and 49 females who filled in the treatment eight surveys.
First the participants had to indicate with which of two female and two male faces they wanted to participate. With these questions it was possible to investigate if people prefer to participate with attractive faces or unattractive faces. Second, the participants had to rate how intelligent, cooperative and hardworking they thought the faces were. With this question it could be investigated if people attribute more positive character traits to attractive people. Thereafter the participants had to indicate if they were male or female. At last they had to indicate if they wanted to cooperate with the chosen male or the chosen female face. This questions were used to investigate if there is a gender specific effect. There was another question thereafter, namely to rate how attractive the participants find themselves, but unfortunately this question was useless. You can find the complete survey in appendix 7.2.
3.3 Analysis of the survey
All the answers of the previous questions were coded in Excel according to the rating scheme found in appendix 7.3. The Excel format was uploaded in Stata to analyze the results. To test whether a given proportion was equal to for example a half the binomial test was used. To compare two variables, the sign-rank test was used. The last test used was the Fisher’s exact test. This test indicates whether a proportion differs between groups. In the next section you can find the results and that results will be analyzed.
4. Results and analysis
First it is important to determine if the faces in the pilot do significantly differ in
attractiveness. This is important because otherwise there will be no variety in the answers of the survey because of the attractiveness of the faces. It is tested whether the faces varied in attractiveness with the sign-rank test between the unattractive and attractive faces. From table
4.1 it can be inferred that the faces do significantly differ in attractiveness according to the male and female participants.
Table 4.1 Difference in attractiveness of the faces
Difference male faces Difference female faces Male participants 1,40 (0.0005) 2,45 (0.0001)
Female participants 2,72 (0.0000) 2,38 (0.0000)
Now it is investigated what the influence of attractiveness is on the chance that one gets selected to work or cooperate with. If participants base their choice with who they want to cooperate only on school grade, two things are expected. First, it is expected that half of the participants in treatment eight choose the attractive male or female face, and half of the participants choose the unattractive male of female face. Second, participants in treatment seven will all choose the unattractive male or female face. In Table 4.2 you can see the results. People clearly don’t base their judgment totally on school grades, they use the attractiveness bias.
Table 4.2 Proportion of participants choosing the attractive face
Male face Female face Treatment seven, expected proportion choosing attractive face 0.00000 0.00000 Treatment seven, observed proportion choosing attractive face 0.35417 0.48958
P-value (0.0000) (0.0000)
Treatment eight, expected proportion choosing attractive face 0.50000 0.50000 Treatment eight, observed proportion choosing attractive face 0.87097 0.91398
P-value (0.0000) (0.0000)
To put the forgoing results in perspective, it is also tested whether the proportion differed between treatments. You can see the results for the male face in table 4.3 and for the female face in table 4.4.
Table 4.3 Fisher’s exact test, the influence of treatment seven or eight on choosing the attractive or unattractive male
Treatment seven
Treatment eight Percentage participants choosing the unattractive face 64,58% 12,90% Percentage participants choosing the attractive face 35,42% 87,10% P-value = (0.0000)
Table 4.4 Fisher’s exact test, the influence of treatment seven or eight on choosing the attractive or unattractive female
Treatment seven
Treatment eight Percentage participants choosing the unattractive face 51,04% 8,60% Percentage participants choosing the attractive face 48,96% 91,40% P-value = (0.0000)
From table 4.3 and 4.4 it can be inferred that the proportion significantly differs among treatments. The effect of the school-grades is significant. But still there is taste discrimination towards unattractive faces. Even though it is clear for the participants that the unattractive faces in treatment seven have a better average school grade, 35,4% of the participants choose the attractive male face, and 49% of the participants choose the attractive female face. This is in line with the related literature.
Now it is investigated what the gender specific effect is. For simplicity it is assumed that there is no gender-effect. This holds that the proportion of participants who should choose to cooperate with the male face is a half. In table 4.5 you can see the results.
Table 4.5 Proportion of participants choosing the male face
Expected proportion choosing the male face 0.50000 Observed proportion choosing the male face 0.38624
P-value (0.002166)
Clearly there are significantly more participants who choose to cooperate with the female face. This result is not in line with the related literature. It was expected that there was
a benefit of being male, or the selection would be according to intrasexual competition and intersexual selection. There can be two explanations for this phenomenon. First, it can be that it is expected that the female faces are more intelligent, better in cooperating and work harder than the male faces. In case that woman are on average more intelligent, better at cooperation and work harder, it would be statistical discrimination. In case that women are not more intelligent, not better at cooperation and don’t work harder, it would be taste discrimination. The second explanation for this phenomenon can be that the faces of the females are more attractive than the faces of the males.
To test if it is expected that female faces are more cooperative than the male faces, the sign-rank test is used. It turned out that the rating on cooperativeness of the male and female faces did not significantly differ, the difference is 0.074 (0.2187). So the participants did not expect the female faces to be more cooperative than the male faces. The same is done for intelligence and hardworking. The rating on intelligence of the male faces and the female faces did also not significantly differ, the difference is 0.045 (0.6225). The rating of the male and female faces on hardworking did significantly differ, the difference is 0.209 (0.0129). People think that the female faces will work harder than the male faces. This is in line with the finding that people choose the female face more often.
Next it is tested if the faces of the females are rated as more attractive than the faces of the males by the male and female participants. The male participants rated the attractive face of the female as significantly more attractive than the face of the male, the difference is 1.6 (0.0005). The male participants rated the unattractive face of the female as equally attractive as the the unattractive face of the male, the difference is 0.55 (0.1757). The female
participants rated the attractive face of the female as weakly significantly more attractive than the face of the male, the difference is 0.345 (0.0997). The female participants rated the unattractive face of the female as significantly more attractive than the unattractive face of the male, the difference is 0.69 (0.0022). The foregoing results can be the answer to the question why people choose to cooperate more with the female faces than with the male faces.
Now it is tested if people attribute more positive characteristics to attractive faces. It is expected that intelligence and hardworking correlate positively with school grades. If
participants base their rating of intelligence and hardworking on the school grades of the faces, and do not use the attractiveness bias, a few things are expected. First it is expected that the ratings between the attractive and unattractive face in treatment eight do not differ.
Second, it is expected that the ratings between the attractive and unattractive faces in treatment seven do differ. Namely the rating on intelligence and hardworking should be
higher for the unattractive faces because their school grade is higher. At last, it is expected that the ratings between the attractive and unattractive faces for cooperation do not differ because participants can’t infer any information about the cooperativeness of the faces out of the school grades. The results are presented in table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Difference in rating between attractive and unattractive face
Difference in rating Treatment seven Treatment eight of intelligence between male faces 0.1250 (0.0593) 0.4086 (0.0096) of intelligence between female faces 0.0521 (0.4768) 0.6882 (0.0000) of cooperation between male faces 0.5938 (0.0003) 0.5376 (0.0016) of cooperation between female faces 0.7396 (0.0000) 0.9032 (0.0000) of hardworking between male faces 0.6146 (0.0000) 0.1505 (0.1344) of hardworking between female faces 0.1042 (0.1023) 0.5807 (0.0004)
First the results of column treatment seven will be discussed. The attractive male face is rated as less intelligent than the unattractive male face. This is in line with the expectations. The female faces are rated equally on intelligence, even though the unattractive female has a higher school grade. The attractive male face is rated as more cooperative than the
unattractive male face. The same holds for the female faces. Clearly, at this point people use the attractiveness bias to infer characteristics about the faces. The attractive male face is rated as less hardworking than the unattractive male face. This is in line with the expectations. The female faces do not differ in hardworking, even though the unattractive face has a higher school grade.
Now the results of column treatment eight will be discussed. The attractive male face is rated as more intelligent than the unattractive male face. The same holds for the female faces. The attractive male face is rated as more cooperative than the unattractive male face. The same holds for the female faces. Clearly, people use the attractiveness bias to infer the intelligence and cooperativeness of the faces. The unattractive male face is rated as equally hardworking as the unattractive male face. This is completely rational. The attractive female face is rated as more hardworking than the unattractive female face. People again use the attractiveness bias at this point.
The results on cooperation are in line with the results of Andreoni and Petrie (2008). Most of the time, people are not completely rational and they use the attractiveness bias. That
is also in line with the related literature. From the results in treatment seven, we can see that people taste discriminate against unattractive female faces in intelligence and hardworking. In the next section the research method and results will be discussed and a conclusion will be reached.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
There are a few important findings from this research. More participants than expected based on rationality choose the attractive faces. But there is a significant effect of school grade on the chance that the attractive faces get selected. So people do take other information than only attractiveness into account. The interaction between attractiveness and gender on the chance that one gets selected to cooperate with remains unclear, unfortunately. At first sight it looks like people prefer to cooperate with the female faces, but it turned out that the female faces were rated as more attractive than the male faces and that it is expected that the female faces will work harder. So it is impossible to infer any gender specific effects out of the data.
At last, it was investigated if people attribute more positive character traits to attractive people. If people can’t infer any information about a certain characteristic out of the school grade, in treatment eight, they use the attractiveness bias. People seem to conclude that if a face is more attractive than another face, the attractive face will also be more intelligent. But maybe an attractive face just looks more intelligent, the research of Alicke, Smith and Klotz (1986) supports this hypothesis. The same happens for the female faces and hardworking. The male unattractive and attractive faces are rated equally on hardworking if people can’t infer any information about the school grade. This last finding is the only rational one; people do not use the attractiveness bias at this point. People can’t infer any information out of the school grade in both conditions about cooperation, people than also use the attractiveness bias.
In treatment seven, people can infer information out of the school grade about intelligence and hardworking. Nevertheless people rate the female faces equally on
intelligence and hardworking. The attractiveness bias is used again. For the male faces, this result changes. The attractive male face is rated as less intelligent and less hardworking than the unattractive face. It looks like people rate the male faces more rational than the female faces, but this can also stem from the fact that the female faces are more attractive.
The finding that people prefer to participate in a project with attractive people is in line with the related literature of Shannon and Stark (2003). They investigated the effect of
attractiveness on personnel selection. They found that the level of attractiveness of the pictures significantly affected the evaluation of the application. But people also value other information like school grade. This is in line with the research of Tews, Stafford and Zhu (2009), who found that attractiveness does have an influence on employment suitability ratings but is valued less than general mental ability and conscientiousness. If people can’t infer any information about the faces, they use the attractiveness bias most of the time to infer characteristics about the faces. This is in line with the research of Andreoni and Petrie (2008), who found that attractive people are expected to be more cooperative.
The most important implication from this research is that our constitution is incomplete. If we change our constitution, people will be more aware of the attractiveness bias. If people are more aware of this bias, they can use their knowledge in for example hiring decisions. The knowledge about the attractiveness bias causes that people use this bias less, and take into account the characteristics that are really important.
The biggest limitation from this research is that only hypothetical choices were given, without any incentives or consequences following this choices. The participants had no
incentive to give answers that were honest. In further research it is therefore important that the choices have a consequence. This can be realized through actually letting the participants do the project with the ‘faces’; of course the faces than have to be existing people; and giving them a grade or money for the project.
The second limitation from this research is that the female faces turned out to be more attractive than the male faces, what made it impossible to investigate the gender effect. It is also impossible to control for attractiveness because the research design consists of a pilot and a survey. This research design is developed to prevent that participants knew exactly what the goal of the survey was. Because otherwise the participants could give answers that are in line with the expected results of this research. If this research is done all over again it is
recommendable to use more faces in the pilot.
The third limitation is that this research assumes that attractiveness can be varied with pictures of faces. Attractiveness consists of many factors, like charisma, body language and also the body itself. In further research it is therefore recommendable to use real people instead of pictures of faces.
The fourth limitation of this research is that it is constantly said that picture one and four are rated as attractive, and picture two and picture three are rated as unattractive. But if we look at the mean ratings this is not the case. We first turn to the male faces. Picture one is rated as neutral, and picture two is indeed rated as unattractive. Now we turn at the female
faces. Picture three is rated as a bit unattractive and picture four is rated as a little bit attractive. So the language used in this thesis is not always correct, but it makes it easier to read. In further research it is therefore important to use more faces in the pilot, which makes it possible to select the attractive and unattractive faces for the survey.
The fifth limitation is also about the use of the language. It turned out that male participants found it very difficult to report if they found the male faces attractive or handsome. So in further research another word has to be used in the pilot.
The last limitation is about generalization. The participants on the survey were students. The question is whether students react the same in this questionnaire as colleagues will do. Furthermore, another question is how often people can choose with who they will do a project. This happens for example if people are hired from an employment agency. The only solution to these problems is to do the research on the work floor, with real people, for
example under people who have colleagues from an employment agency.
6. References
Agthe, M., Spörrle, M. and Maner, J.K. (2010) Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Anti- attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation and decision making. Journal of
experimental social psychology, 46, 1151-1154.
Alicke, M.D., Smith, R.H. and Klotz, M.L. (1986) Judgements of Physical Attractiveness: The Role of Faces and Bodies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 381-389.
Andreoni, J. and Petrie, R. (2008) Beauty, Gender and Stereotypes: Evidence from Laboratory Experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology , 29(1), 73–93.
Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution
Belot, M., Bhaskar, V. and Van de Ven, J. (2012) Beauty and the Sources of Discrimination. Journal of Human Resources, 47(3), 851-872.
Biddle, J.E. and Hamermesh, D.S. (1994) Beauty and the labour market. American Economic
Review, 84(5), 1174-1194
Cann, A.., Siegfried, W.D. and Pearce, L. (1981) Forced attention to specific applicant qualifications: impact on physical attractiveness and sex of applicant biases. Personnel
Psychology, 34, 65-75.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2012) Registratie discriminatieklachten 2011. Luxen, M.F. and Van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2006) Facial attractiveness, sexual selection and
personnel selection: When evolved preferences matter. Journal of organizational
behavior, 27, 241-255.
Mobius, M.M. and Rosenblat, T.S. (2006) Why beauty matters. American Economic Review, 96(1), 222- 235.
Solnick, S.J. and Schweitzer, M.E. (1999) The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 79(3), 199–215.
Schwab, S. (1986) Is Statistical Discrimination Efficient? The American Economic Review. 76(1), 228-234.
Shannon, M.L. and Stark, P.C. (2003) The influence of physical appearance on personnel selection. Social behavior and personality, 31, 613-624.
Tews, M.J., Stafford, K. and Zhu, J. (2009) Beauty revisited: The impact of attractiveness, ability, and personality in the assessment of employment suitability. International
journal of selection and assessment, 1, 92-101.
Watkins, L.M. and Johnston, L. (2000) Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International journal of selection and
assessment, 2, 76-85.
7. Appendix
7.1 PilotBeste deelnemer, ik ben bezig met een onderzoek voor mijn bachelorscriptie. Zou je op een schaal van 1 tot 7 willen aangeven hoe aantrekkelijk/knap jullie deze 2 mannen en 2 vrouwen vinden? Alvast bedankt!
1= heel onaantrekkelijk 2=onaantrekkelijk 3=beetje onaantrekkelijk 4=neutraal 5=beetje aantrekkelijk 6=aantrekkelijk 7=heel aantrekkelijk
Graag omcirkelen wat van toepassing is.
Foto 1 Foto 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Foto 3 Foto 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ik ben een: man vrouw
7.2 Survey
Beste deelnemer,
Ik ben bezig met een onderzoek voor mijn bachelorscriptie. Zou je daarom deze vragenlijst eerlijk willen invullen? Kleur het rondje in bij het juiste antwoord. De antwoorden zijn compleet anoniem. Alvast bedankt! Je kan deze vragenlijst in de pauze of aan het einde van het hoorcollege weer bij mij inleveren.
Stel je voor dat je volgend jaar met een groep van 5 studenten een project moet doen dat een jaar duurt. Jij bent de groepsleider en je hebt nog 1 persoon nodig om je groepje compleet te maken. Je krijgt alleen de foto’s en gemiddelde cijfers te zien van de studenten waaruit jij kunt kiezen.
Foto 1 Foto 2 Gemiddeld cijfer: 7/8 Gemiddeld cijfer: 8
Foto 3 Foto 4
Gemiddeld cijfer: 8 Gemiddeld cijfer: 7/8
1. Stel je zou kunnen kiezen uit foto 1 en foto 2, wie zou jij dan in je projectgroep willen?
⃝ De persoon op foto 1 ⃝ De persoon op foto 2
2. Stel je zou kunnen kiezen uit foto 3 en foto 4, wie zou jij dan in je projectgroep willen?
⃝ De persoon op foto 3 ⃝ De persoon op foto 4
3. Hoe intelligent denk je dat de persoon is op
Foto 1? Foto 2? Foto 3? Foto 4?
Dom ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Een beetje dom ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Gemiddeld ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Een beetje intelligent ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Intelligent ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
4. Hoe goed denk je dat de persoon kan samenwerken op
Foto 1? Foto 2? Foto 3? Foto 4?
Kan slecht samenwerken ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Is een beetje slecht in samenwerken ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Gemiddeld ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Kan een beetje goed samenwerken ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Kan goed samenwerken ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
5. Hoe hard denk je dat de persoon zal werken voor het project op
Foto 1? Foto 2? Foto 3? Foto 4?
Zal niks doen ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Zal een beetje minder doen ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Gemiddeld ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Zal een beetje hard werken ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
Zal hard werken ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝
6. Ik ben een: ⃝ Man
⃝ Vrouw
7. Wil je het liefst met de gekozen man (uit vraag 1) of met de gekozen vrouw (uit vraag 2) samenwerken?
⃝ Ik wil het liefst met de gekozen vrouw samenwerken ⃝ Ik wil het liefst met de gekozen man samenwerken
8. Hoe aantrekkelijk vind je jezelf? ⃝ Ik vind mijzelf onaantrekkelijk
⃝ Ik vind mijzelf een beetje onaantrekkelijk ⃝ Ik vind mijzelf gemiddeld aantrekkelijk ⃝ Ik vind mijzelf een beetje aantrekkelijk ⃝ Ik vind mijzelf aantrekkelijk
7.3 Variable list: name of the variables and variable construction
Name Range
variable Min Max Description and rating of the variable
Q1 0 1 1 If the participant wants to cooperate with the attractive male 0 If the participant wants to cooperate with the unattractive male Q2 0 1 1 If the participant wants to cooperate with the unattractive female 0 If the participant wants to cooperate with the attractive female Q3P1 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how intelligent the attractive male is according to the participant
Q3P2 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how intelligent the unattractive male is according to the participant
Q3P3 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how intelligent the unattractive female is according to the participant
Q3P4 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how intelligent the attractive female is according to the participant
Q4P1 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 of how bad the participants wants to cooperate with the attractive male
Q4P2 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 of how bad the participants wants to cooperate with the unattractive male
Q4P3 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 of how bad the participants wants to cooperate with the unattractive female
Q4P4 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 of how bad the participants wants to cooperate with the attractive female
Q5P1 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how likely it is that the attractive male
will work hard
Q5P2 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how likely it is that the unattractive male
will work hard
Q5P3 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how likely it is that the unattractive
female will work hard
Q5P4 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 how likely it is that the attractive female
will work hard
Q6 0 1 Gender participant: 1 if male and 0 if female
Q7 0 1 If the participant wants to cooperate with the female 0, if the participant wants to cooperate with the male 1
Q8 1 5 Rating on a scale from 1 to 5 on how attractive the participant finds
him or herself
Grade 0 1 1 If the attractive and unattractive faces have a grade of 8 and 0 If the attractive faces have a grade of 7 and the unattractive ones a
grade of 8
