"Beauty" premium for social scientists but "unattractiveness" premium for natural scientists in the public speaking market

The increasing engagement of scientists in public discourse necessitates examining factors influencing their public prominence and success. While scientific competence is crucial, this study investigates whether perceived facial attractiveness also plays a role. Previous research has established a "beautiful-is-good" halo effect, where attractive individuals receive more positive judgments and opportunities in various contexts, including the labor market and academia. However, the impact of attractiveness on scientists' public perception and market value remains unclear. Scientists are subject to stereotypes, often portrayed as unattractive and socially awkward, particularly in STEM fields. These stereotypes may affect public perception of their work and their ability to generate interest and influence. This study explores whether these stereotypes influence scientists' speaking fees, a proxy for their market value in public speaking engagements, differentiating between social and natural scientists.

The literature documents a "beauty premium" in various settings. Attractive individuals tend to receive better income and job opportunities, higher teacher ratings, and better career progression in academia. However, attractiveness's correlation with productivity is less clear. Previous work suggests that attractive individuals may be more confident but not necessarily more productive. Studies also show that the public is more interested in the work of attractive scientists, but this attractiveness is negatively correlated with perceptions of work quality. The existing literature lacks a focused examination of the impact of attractiveness on scientists' speaking fees, particularly considering disciplinary differences (social vs. natural sciences). The common stereotype of the natural scientist as less attractive also warrants investigation, as this may influence public perception and the market's valuation of their expertise.

This study analyzes data on 734 public speakers obtained from eight North American speaker agencies. The sample includes 217 full-time academics, 151 part-time academics, and 366 non-academics. Facial attractiveness was assessed using Anaface.com, a web-based software that analyzes facial geometry. Three research assistants independently scored each speaker's photograph to minimize measurement error. Academic performance was measured using publication counts, citations, and h-index from Google Scholar and Scopus for academics. External influence was assessed through Google search results (excluding .edu domains), TED talk invitations, book publications, and awards (e.g., New York Times bestseller status). Speakers were categorized into natural sciences, social sciences (business), and social sciences (other). Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors were used to analyze the data. The analysis controlled for various biographical characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, professional age, university ranking, and Nobel Prize status. Interaction terms were used to examine differences between disciplines.

The analysis revealed no significant relationship between facial attractiveness and internal academic achievements (publications, citations). However, attractiveness positively correlated with external influence indicators like TED talk invitations and Google search results, but not book publications or awards. The key finding is the divergence in the relationship between attractiveness and speaking fees across disciplines. Social scientists, especially those outside business, exhibited a significant "beauty premium," with higher speaking fees associated with higher attractiveness. In contrast, natural scientists showed a significant "unattractiveness premium," with higher speaking fees linked to lower attractiveness. This pattern persisted even when considering non-academic speakers with natural science or social science backgrounds. A one-unit increase in attractiveness (on a 10-point scale) increased the minimum speaking fee by roughly 20%.

The findings on the unattractiveness premium for natural scientists corroborate prior research indicating that less attractive scientists are perceived as better scientists. The current study extends this by using speaking fees as a market-based measure of willingness to pay for public engagement. The observed "beauty" and "unattractiveness" premiums likely stem from the interplay between attractiveness and disciplinary stereotypes. While job performance in academia is more readily measurable and less subject to bias, facial appearance may influence external perceptions and opportunities, particularly in public-facing contexts. Although the study doesn't directly address stereotypes, the results support the prevailing image of a "nerdy" natural scientist, contrasting with the potentially more positive perception of attractive social scientists. The results highlight how perceptions of attractiveness and stereotypes influence the market value of scientists, demonstrating a significant impact on their public engagement and the dissemination of knowledge.

This study reveals a significant disciplinary variation in the relationship between facial attractiveness and speaking fees among scientists. Social scientists benefit from a beauty premium, while natural scientists gain from an unattractiveness premium, reflecting existing stereotypes. These findings underscore the importance of both scientific merit and perceived attractiveness in shaping scientists' public success and market value. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms, including social skills, confidence, and the perceived dialectic differences between natural and social sciences, to fully understand these beauty and unattractiveness premiums. Further investigation is needed to replicate these findings with larger, more diverse samples and to refine attractiveness measures.

The study's main limitation is the reliance on Anaface.com for attractiveness assessment, despite existing correlations between its scores and human attractiveness ratings, a more robust validation with independent human ratings is needed. Furthermore, perceptions of facial attractiveness vary across cultures and evaluator groups. The study's sample of academics who actively engage in public speaking may not be fully representative of all scientists. While the study uses several robust measures for academic productivity, some limitations on the use of citation-based metrics need to be considered.