Are affluent people more attractive?

In My Humble Opinion
1

The other day I was involved in a Facebook conversation with somebody who made a statement to the effect that children who attended a particular elementary school were “beautiful.” I responded that this isn’t too surprising, since the school is located in an extremely affluent section of Los Angeles, and there is a positive correlation between socioeconomic status and physical attractiveness. He disagreed with me, and since he’s somebody who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and is better educated than I am, I naturally questioned my own statement. I’ve always been led to believe that the correlation is an established tenet of social psychology, and never had any reason to doubt it. The reasons why this is true have been explained to me at various times as being (among the following) that

1). Affluent males are more likely to attract and procreate with an attractive woman.

2). Physically attractive people just generally have it easier in life, because people react to them positively from an early age, which favorably affects their personality and leads to behaviors which tend to foster a higher socioeconomic status in adulthood.

3). Wealthy people can more readily afford preventive dentistry and medicine, and other things which lend themselves to physical attractiveness, such as a healthier diet.

Is there any validity to this line of reasoning? Bear in mind that I’m just positing that there’s a positive correlation; I’m not saying that the correlation coefficient is 1. So please don’t start jumping up and down screaming “but I personally know a butt-ugly rich person, so there!”

2

I’ve also heard the theory that affluent people appear to age slower as they suffer less stress and avoid physical labor.

3

I’m almost 50, and I have started paying more attention to how people my age are holding up and looking.

My own observation is that many of the people that look “bad” at age 50 are less affluent and that many of the people that look “good” at age 50 are more affluent.

Having a harder or more stressful life does seem to catch up with you sooner or later.

I do a lot of traveling in 2nd and 3rd world countries, and I am still sometimes surprised at how some people of only 50 can look to my eyes as if they should be 65 or 70.

4

Sure, why not? However, I would expect that (3) is likely to be by the biggest effect by a long way. Some factors that tend to good looks may be heritable, but even many that are in a sense “genetic” (ratios of different facial features to one another, for instance) may not really be heritable because they almost certainly depend on the synergistic effects of just teh right combination of genes, that will get shuffled up between parents and children.

Also, inasmuch as your (1) is based upon the idea that rich men will attract beautiful women, not all the genetic traits that make women beautiful are going to be the same as those that make men handsome, so this might work (to teh extent that it works at all) better for daughters than for sons.

As to your (2), although it is probably a bit easier for more physically attractive people to get the jobs or to close the deals that they want (which will tend to boost their earning potential), I think your reasoning that being attractive is likely to result in a more wealth-attracting personality is highly suspect. It might do that sometimes, but there are a lot of other variables affecting personality, and being attractive and, for that reason, having things a bit easier might be at least as likely to lead someone to being vain or lazy, or something else not so good, as to … well, whatever good things you think it might lead to: self-confidence, maybe.

5

Based on personal experience, yes.

6

I agree but a lot of the attractiveness has to do with the right clothes, haircuts, and time for attention to current fashions.

7

True, that will work. But nothing as good as cash.

8

I think that’s a huge part of it; thinking back from middle school forward, it always seemed like the financially better off girls were hotter, even though in retrospect, it was because they typically had very contemporary hair, clothes and well done makeup. As time passed, they typically had better teeth because they’d had orthodontic work as well.

However on closer reflection, they weren’t any better looking really, but just had the good hair and makeup and fashionable clothes, and there was usually some groupthink going on about how hot they were.

As time goes on though, it does seem like the wealthier women are better looking, although I’m not sure how much of that is due to physical factors (stress, diet, etc…) or how much is societal. I get the impression that within certain circles it’s considered very important to try and remain physically attractive than in less wealthy ones. At least in my observation, the more wealthy women don’t seem to be markedly better looking anymore, but they definitely spend a lot more time on exercise, makeup, hair and sometimes on plastic surgery.

9

I think so. First, you have much more resources and free time to hire personal trainers and nutritionists to keep you trim and fit. And instead of buying off the rack like I do, they can buy tailored and expensive clothing that just looks sharp. Hairstyles and perfect whiter than white teeth also help.

And the cash also helps. Even though we like to thing we aren’t that shallow, when a member of the opposite sex pulls out a drug dealer sized wad of cash and pays for lunch makes that person look much more desirable.

10

Damn. I fail at all three.

11

Since this OP will attract as many opinions as facts, let’s move from GQ to IMHO.

samclem, Moderator

12

Something I noticed anecdotally is affluent women are much less likely to be overweight. This could be confirmation bias but with money comes time, and with time you are able to stay active and eat right.

Affluent kids have TONS of resources to make sure theyre not too fat, too bored, or too behind in school. If someone is privleged early in life many of these resources (particularly braces/good medical care) translates to a healtheir and attractive looking adult.

13

I have also read that attractive people make more money. Jobs like sales positions tend to attract work better for attractive people.

14

I don’t think so at all. Class/income mobility is high enough in the US to make any population-level effects basically impossible. There are plenty of affluent people whose kids end up with drug problems or teen babies, and plenty of poor people whose kids make it up to college and get on professional job tracks.

What I do think you see is that we are attracted to indicators of wealth. The easy example would be body weight. In food-poor societies, plump women are extremely sexy because it recalls a lush, abundant life. In food-rich societies, slim women are considered the ideal, because it brings to mind an attention to health, discipline, and leisure time for athletics. You can see this now as Bollywood actresses have gone from being chubby and voluptuous to being athletic and slim in the past decade or so. Weight is a class thing, not an attraction thing.

Same thing with suntans. In farming societies, tan skin is an embarrassing mark of a low-class woman who has to work in the fields. China and India spend millions on various face-whitening concoctions, and light skin is one of the highest marks of beauty. In office societies, however, a tan means you are hanging out on the beach all day and not in some horrible cubicle, so western women spend small fortunes on tanning salons and bronzers. I used to horrify my Chinese students- all envious of my sheet-white skin, by tanning on sunny days while they carefully carried parasols.

These things vary by what a society finds “classy.” Well-off British people are baffled by our freakishly white teeth, while we are grossed out by what they would consider an unremarkble set of teeth. Orthodonics are a class signal here, but not there. In the US, there are certain clothes and hairstyles a plain woman who can hit those just right can become “attractive.” Once you are past college age, a nicely made-up face and well-tailored suit is going to look way more attractive than a baggy sweatsuit.

With older women I think what you find is that older professional women are in jobs where an attractively “professional” appearence matters. But while less affluent women may work “looks matter” service jobs when they are younger, as they get older they end up in call centers, stockrooms, and other jobs where the investment of keeping up your looks isn’t really worth it.

Another factor is that lifestyle matters a lot more as you get older. A woman who was a 60% looks-wise in high school can find herself a 90% looks-wise at 35 if she plays her cards that way, simply because a large percent of the people who were attractive in their teens are going to become obese, start showing environmental damage on their skin, have body changes from childbirth, settle into less sexualized roles, etc. At 17 you are lined up against a bunch of fresh-face 17 year olds. At 35 you are lined up against the morbidely obese, that lady who suntanned every day of her life till her skin was leather, the woman who became comfortable as the “crazy cat lady” and the mother of eight.

15

There are a lot of factors, but based on various studies I have read in various areas, yes. Affluent people tend to be more attractive.

Studies have shown that attractive people tend to earn more. But a couple of thousand a year won’t make the difference between middle class and super-wealthy.

Simply being a part of an affluent lifestyle makes someone seem more attractive. Big house, nice car, custom tailored designer clothes.

According to some studies I read, affluent people tend to be more image conscious. Their kids are taught to dress better and groom themselves more frequently.

Rather than all “jock” OR all “nerd”, many of the top schools look for the “scholar athlete” type. Sporty kids with good grades and lots of extraciricular activities.
If anything, even sven, proves the point. If anything, “attractive” is subjective by culture and often changeable. The affluent tend to have the resources to configure themselves in whatever way defines “attractive” for their culture.

Then again, some of us were just born good looking.:smiley:

16

At least half of beauty is time and effort. Probably more. I’ve seen a lot of before-and-afters of beauty pageant kids (on Toddlers and Tiaras), and very few of the before-kids would grab your eye on the street. They just look like normal kids. But dress anybody up in expensive clothing, professional-level makeup, wigs/hairpieces, fake eyelashes, spray-on tans (or even tanning beds), cosmetic dentistry, and possibly even plastic surgery… how are we povs (persons living in relative poverty) supposed to compete??

17

I think lifestyle choices are a big factor in this. In addition to the factors already mentioned such as stress, time to exercise, healthy diet, you also have the effects of smoking and drug abuse. Smoking rates are lower at higher income levels in the US these days, and drug abuse may directly contribute to someone being in a lower income bracket than they otherwise would be. Both vices can make someone look old before their time.

18

I found a reference to what I was talking about:

On the Job, Beauty Is More Than Skin-Deep

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504576655331418204842.html

I originally read about it in the Freakonomics blog

Dan Hamermesh Answers Your Questions About Beauty Pays
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/18/dan-hamermesh-answers-your-questions-about-beauty-pays/

So the answer is that Attractive People are more Affluent.

19

Looks like there are two different principles being discussed here. You can certainly use money to make yourself more physically attractive, through clothes, personal trainer, plastic surgery, etc. But I’ve found that simply having the money makes people more attractive. Men moreso than women, because men are pigs and more fixated on looks to start with. But it helps women also. I’ve seen many more cases of men marrying up over time.

20

Do you mean Donald Trump-level attractiveness, Rupert Murdoch-level attractiveness or Christy Walton (Wal-Mart heiress)-level attractiveness?