Physical attractiveness can greatly influence business job applications (the "beauty premium" effect). However, little is known about whether and how physical attractiveness influences interviewers' evaluations of Chinese civil servant applicants, given that many characteristics of civil service appear to be different from those of business jobs. Using event-related potentials (ERPs), the current study investigated how female job candidates' physical attractiveness influenced interviewers' evaluations in Chinese civil servant interviews for both technical and managerial positions. The behavioral results showed that for the managerial positions, attractive female candidates had a much higher acceptance rate than unattractive candidates. However, for the technical positions, no significant difference was found between attractive and unattractive candidates. At the brain level, for the managerial positions, pairs of attractive faces with managerial posts elicited smaller N400 and larger late positive potential (LPP) amplitudes than did pairs of unattractive faces with managerial posts. However, this relationship was not observed for technical posts. The negative correlation between N400 amplitude and acceptance rate as well as the positive correlation between LPP amplitude and acceptance rate further confirmed these results. The present study suggests that beauty could potentially influence if candidates are accepted in real Chinese civil servant interviews, as observed experimentally in this research.
Science. 1980 Jan 11;207(4427):203-5
[PMID:
7350657]
Neurosci Lett. 2017 Feb 15;640:130-135
[PMID:
28111351]
Emotion. 2014 Oct;14(5):940-9
[PMID:
24866528]
Psychophysiology. 1986 Nov;23(6):695-703
[PMID:
3823345]
Dev Neuropsychol. 2010;35(2):129-55
[PMID:
20390599]
Front Neurosci. 2017 Dec 06;11:675
[PMID:
29270104]
Front Neurosci. 2015 Mar 10;9:77
[PMID:
25805967]
Neuropsychologia. 1998 Mar;36(3):217-26
[PMID:
9622187]
Brain Topogr. 2010 Sep;23(3):311-20
[PMID:
20549553]
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2009 Jun;4(2):191-8
[PMID:
19270040]
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972 Dec;24(3):285-90
[PMID:
4655540]
Biol Psychol. 2010 Dec;85(3):437-45
[PMID:
20858526]
Psychophysiology. 2000 Mar;37(2):127-52
[PMID:
10731765]
J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Apr;19(4):577-86
[PMID:
17381249]
Prog Brain Res. 2006;156:31-51
[PMID:
17015073]
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;50(11):1373-83
[PMID:
19754501]
Biol Psychol. 2000 Mar;52(2):95-111
[PMID:
10699350]
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Sep;108(5):456-71
[PMID:
9780016]
Neuropsychologia. 2014 Dec;65:211-20
[PMID:
25446967]
Psychophysiology. 2000 Mar;37(2):257-61
[PMID:
10731776]
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Oct;75(4):887-900
[PMID:
9825526]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Aug;113(8):1339-50
[PMID:
12140015]
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Apr;9(4):544-52
[PMID:
23386742]
Nature. 1984 Jan 12-18;307(5947):161-3
[PMID:
6690995]
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999 Sep;79(3):199-215
[PMID:
10471361]
Psychophysiology. 1985 Nov;22(6):642-7
[PMID:
4089090]
Biol Psychol. 2015 Feb;105:115-23
[PMID:
25619616]
