The Impact of Chinese CEOs' Facial Aesthetics on Their Compensation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/ar3g8f72Keywords:
Facial attractiveness; facial maturity; compensation.Abstract
Much of the psychological and sociological literature has shown that beauty plays a role in the workplace. Does this apply to CEOs and affect their compensation? This study uses the term facial aesthetics to measure CEO beauty. Facial attractiveness and facial maturity are two important components of facial aesthetics. This paper summarizes three methods. The first method uses the ResNet50 deep convolutional neural network, using ImageNet data, which is applied to a variety of image processing tasks. The second method is Three-Dimensional Stereo-Photogrammetry using in major contemporary studies of facial soft-tissue attractiveness. The third approach is the Visual Analogue Scales, the validity of which is also well supported by empirical data, including in terms of test-retest and interrater reliability. The results show that both facial attractiveness and facial maturity have an impact on CEO compensation. Black CEOs with baby faces have higher pay and status than those with more mature faces. CEOs who are more physically attractive are paid more than their less attractive counterparts. However, there is little research on this aspect at present. Like facial maturity, only black CEOs and their pay have been studied, but for the rest of the population, the results are unknown. And, due to the cultural differences, each race also has aesthetic differences.
Downloads
References
Feingold A. Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 112(1): 125.
Jackson L A, Hunter J E, Hodge C N. Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1995, 108-122.
Castilla E J. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. American Journal of Sociology, 2008, 113(6): 1479-1526.
Meltzer A L, et al. Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014, 106(3): 418.
Langlois J H, et al. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 2000, 126(3): 390.
Webster J M, Driskell J E. Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 1983, 89(1): 140-165.
Chiu R K, Babcock R D. The relative importance of facial attractiveness and gender in Hong Kong selection decisions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2002, 13(1), 141-155.
Hosoda M, et al. The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 2003.
Hamermesh D S, Biddle J E. Beauty and the labor market. American Economic Review, 1994, 84(5): 1174-1194.
Scholz J K, Sicinski K. Facial attractiveness and lifetime earnings: Evidence from a cohort study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2015, 97(1): 14-28.
Nichols D, Subramaniam C. Executive compensation: Excessive or equitable. Journal of Business Ethics, 2001, 29(4): 339-351.
Joutsenvirta M. Executive pay and legitimacy: Changing discursive battles over the morality of excessive manager compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 2013, 116(3): 459-477.
Livingston Robert W, Nicholas A. The Teddy-Bear Effect: Does having a Baby Face Benefit Black Chief Executive Officers? Psychological Science, 2009, 1229-1236.
Zebrowitz L A. Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
He K, et al. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 2016.
Mishkin D, Sergievskiy N, Matas J. Systematic evaluation of convolution neural network advances on the imagenet. Computer vision and image understanding, 2017, 11-19.
Lorestani Y, Feiznia S, Mosavi A, Nádai L. Hybrid model of morphometric analysis and statistical correlation for hydrological units prioritization. Working paper, 2020.
Liang L, et al. SCUT-FBP5500: A diverse benchmark dataset for multi-paradigm facial beauty prediction. In 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 2018.
Joe P S, et al. Comparison of a novel surface laser scanning anthropometric technique to traditional methods for facial parameter measurements. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene, 2012, 9(2): 81-88.
Dindaroglu, et al. Accuracy and reliability of 3d stereophotogrammetry: a comparison to direct anthropometry and 2d photogrammetry. Angle Orthodontist, 2016, 86(3).
Longwei Zhou, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of two different 3d face-scanning systems. The International journal of prosthodontics, 216, 29(3): 213-218.
Aat A, et al. The importance of using the entire face to assess facial profile attractiveness - sciencedirect. International Orthodontics, 2016, 14(1): 65-79.
Kang Y G, et al. Comparison of the frontal esthetic preferences in the lower facial portion of koreans and caucasians. World journal of orthodontics, 2009, 10(2): 111-116.
Tsao D Y, Freiwald W A. What's so special about the average face?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2006, 10(9): 391-393.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J. The measurement and valuation of health for economic evaluation. International Encyclopedia of Public Health, 2008, 252-261.
Tervio M. The difference that CEOs make: An assignment model approach. American Economic Review, 2008, 98: 642-668.
Chapa Olga, et al. Pay for Beauty? A Contingent Perspective of CEO Facial Attractiveness on CEO Compensation. Human Resource Management, 2020.
Ahmed Shaker, et al. Facial Attractiveness and CEO Compensation: Evidence from the Banking Industry. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2020.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
