![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/businesswoman-750x375.jpg)
People tend to say that they prioritize social warmth and vitality over physical beauty when evaluating others in both personal and professional contexts, according to a new study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. But these self-reported ideals might not fully match how decisions actually play out in the real world.
The concept of attractiveness has long been studied in psychology, evolutionary biology, and even management. Although it’s widely accepted that attractive individuals often enjoy social and professional advantages—like higher salaries and more positive evaluations—most studies have looked at isolated aspects of attractiveness, like facial symmetry or grooming.
The new study aimed to take a more comprehensive view by investigating “erotic capital,” a concept introduced by sociologist Catherine Hakim. Erotic capital refers to a collection of traits that make a person attractive to others in social, romantic, or professional settings. It includes five elements: five elements: beauty, social attractiveness, sexual attractiveness, liveliness, and social presentation.
Beauty refers to features like facial symmetry, clear skin, and a proportional body—traits often associated with physical appeal. Social attractiveness includes friendliness, warmth, empathy, and the ability to connect easily with others; these traits make a person pleasant and approachable. Sexual attractiveness involves a person’s sex appeal or charisma, which may be expressed through body language, confidence, or the way they emphasize their physical or intellectual assets.
Liveliness reflects a person’s energy, humor, curiosity, and optimism—characteristics that can make someone feel engaging and full of life. Finally, social presentation refers to how someone styles or presents themselves, including clothing, grooming, makeup, accessories, and overall personal appearance.
The researchers wanted to see whether people take these traits into account when meeting someone new or making professional judgments like hiring or performance evaluations. They were particularly interested in how these traits are weighed in employment decisions, which are often assumed to be based purely on merit or qualifications.
The research was carried out in Poland using an anonymous online survey that reached 471 respondents, including 344 women and 127 men. Most participants were under the age of 30 and had some professional experience. About one-third had experience conducting job interviews, and more than half had evaluated colleagues or subordinates in a work setting.
Participants were asked to rate how much 23 specific traits influenced their impression of another person across three hypothetical situations: meeting someone in a private setting, interviewing a job candidate, and evaluating a colleague they already knew. These 23 traits were grouped under the five dimensions of erotic capital.
For example, social attractiveness included qualities like friendliness, empathy, and the ability to make others feel comfortable. Liveliness referred to traits like optimism, humor, and energetic behavior. Presentation covered appearance-related choices like hairstyle, clothing, and accessories. Sexual attractiveness included whether someone highlighted their physical or intellectual assets or exhibited femininity or masculinity. Beauty referred to physical features such as facial symmetry and body proportions.
When it came to private life, participants said they valued friendliness, empathy, and warmth the most—traits under the dimension of social attractiveness. Liveliness was also highly rated, suggesting that energy and curiosity contribute significantly to how people form personal connections. In contrast, traits related to physical appearance, like a fit body or symmetrical face, were seen as relatively less important.
During hypothetical job interviews, the pattern was similar. Respondents said they would be most influenced by a candidate’s friendliness, appropriate clothing, and ability to relate to others. Presentation and social skills were rated more highly than physical attractiveness or sex appeal. The same general trend emerged when participants imagined evaluating a coworker they had known for some time.
Across all three contexts, social attractiveness and liveliness consistently stood out as the most influential dimensions. Traits associated with beauty and sexual attractiveness were often rated lower, especially in professional settings.
However, these findings came with notable gender differences. Men tended to place more weight on sexual attractiveness than women did. Women gave higher ratings to social warmth, energy, and presentation. Age also played a role: younger participants gave more importance to sex appeal, while older respondents placed greater emphasis on vitality and personal presentation.
Even though most respondents said beauty was not especially influential in hiring or evaluation decisions, the researchers noted that these responses diverged from existing literature. Prior research has consistently shown that physical attractiveness does affect employment outcomes—often in ways people may not consciously recognize.
The researchers caution that their findings may reflect what people think they should say rather than how they actually behave. Because the questions were hypothetical, participants may have been influenced by social desirability bias—a tendency to give responses that seem acceptable or fair, rather than admitting to biases they might hold unconsciously.
This effect may be especially strong in professional scenarios, where respondents could feel pressure to downplay the importance of beauty or sexual attractiveness. The authors suggest that some participants might have answered based on what they believe is right or politically correct, rather than what truly influences their judgments.
This gap between ideals and real-world behavior raises important questions. If people claim that physical attractiveness doesn’t matter in hiring, but empirical evidence shows otherwise, then unconscious biases may still be affecting decision-making in subtle ways. Recognizing this disconnect is essential for understanding how people navigate workplace dynamics—and for promoting fairer employment practices.
The researchers plan to build on this work by examining real-world hiring and performance evaluation experiences and by considering how both assessors and those being assessed perceive the role of erotic capital. They also hope to investigate how conscious and unconscious judgments differ, and whether certain traits are more or less important depending on job type or organizational culture.
The study, “Erotic Capital: The Role of Attractiveness in Employment and Private Life,” was authored by Katarzyna Wojtaszczyk and Marzena Syper‑Jędrzejak.
