The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Beauty, Productivity, and Discrimination: Lawyers' Looks and Lucre
Abstract
We propose models with an ascriptive characteristic generating earnings differentials and causing sectoral sorting, allowing us to distinguish among sources producing such differentials. We use longitudinal data on a large sample of graduates from one law school and measure beauty by rating matriculation photographs. (1) Betterlooking attorneys who graduated in the 1970s earned more than others after 5 years of practice, an effect that grew with experience. (2) Attorneys in the private sector are better‐looking than those in the public sector, differences that rise with age. These results support theories of dynamic sorting and customer behavior.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kukkonen, I., Pajunen, T., Sarpila, O., & Åberg, E. (2024) · European Societies · doi:10.1080/14616696.2023.2210202 · Cited by 43
“…2011; Kanazawa and Still 2018), better negotiators (Rosenblat 2008), or whether the preferences indeed cause employees to be more productive in certain fi elds of work where, for example, customer preferences are crucial for productivity (Biddle and Hamermesh 1998; Hamer-mesh and Biddle 1994).”
BackgroundOccupational Characteristics and the Obesity Wage Penalty
Shinall, J. B. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2379575 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Biddle, J. E., & Hamermesh, D. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Labor Economics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 172-201
- ISSN
- 0734-306X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5307
- OpenAlex
- W3122918631
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
