« Assorted links | Main | Markets in Everything: Media »
African-American CEOs have baby faces
Media analysts have argued that a major factor in Barack Obama’s political success is his nonthreatening demeanor, to counteract the stereotype of the threatening black man. Researchers wondered if there might be a similar counter-stereotypical pattern for black CEOs, even on a purely visual level. They asked people to rate pictures of CEOs for baby-facedness, warmth, and competence. Relative to white CEOs, black CEOs were rated as more baby-faced - and, consistent with prior research on baby-faced stereotypes, seen as warmer and less competent. For blacks, being baby-faced meant earning more money, the study found, whereas white CEOs earned less money if they were baby-faced. According to the authors, this confirms that blacks need “disarming mechanisms” to be successful in corporate America.
Here is the link, which reports some other interesting (and separate) results. The core source is Livingston, R. & Pearce, N., “The Teddy-Bear Effect: Does Having a Baby Face Benefit Black Chief Executive Officers?” Psychological Science (October 2009). Here are some photos and charts.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 1, 2009 at 05:04 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Could it be that a dominant white-only culture amongst executive level and boards of directors with little contact with black individuals in person, and only seeing them portrayed in a negative light in the media has meant that to be seen as acceptable, the perception of threat has to be dulled?
If we accept my explanation above, and If we assume that more blacks (men and women) start to move into middle management and upper management roles, the established power structures will become more comfortable with black individuals in general, and at some point, they will not be required to be seen to be disarming in some way to continue climbing, because the skin color will not be seen as an additional threat.
At this stage, should we expect that baby-facedness to become a liability?
Alternately, there is something about darker colored skin that needs to be softened as part of human nature (I don't particularly like this explanation).
Other thoughts?
Posted by: dph at Nov 1, 2009 6:14:36 PM
Oh, come on, you think Obama's success is do to a baby face. How about movie star Reagan? Reagan is more probable than Obama as an appearance that would reach voters in Indiana, West Virginia, and the deep south.
Rather than appearance, you might want to consider substance, and a style of leadership that more closely matches being an editor of the Harvard Law Review. The country has shifted from "gut" thinking to cerebreality. Maybe there's hope for economics professors.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 1, 2009 6:31:34 PM
And, don't forget Obama is tall, and the studies on leadership and height.
I am a bit doubtful about all of this. Afterall, Michael Steele, the head of the RNC, is baby faced and tall.
Now, Tom DeLay was short, and maybe that explains everything. But, he is a good dancer.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 1, 2009 6:42:31 PM
So isn't the real question why Obama, who DOESN'T have a baby face, can succeed on politics while corporate types need a "baby face" to get the top job.
Heaven forbid we only like black men with white ancestry.....
Posted by: charlie at Nov 1, 2009 6:53:59 PM
I call baloney. By the time you are a senior VP at a major corporation, "baby-facedness" doesn't cut the mustard as a cause of anything. I would buy that appearance-related intangibles such as attractiveness, a friendly but commanding demeanor, and "fitting the part," might be relevant to becoming a CEO. But almost everyone who is has reached the level of a senior executive can check off those boxes, and I don't think anyone is "threatened" to encounter a senior vice president of any race (dressed as such) in a dark hallway, unless it's because they fear getting laid off. I'm of the opinion that asking white and Asian college students about facial features is NOT a means to insight into the promotion policies of corporations.
Posted by: An Onyx Mousse at Nov 1, 2009 6:55:16 PM
Wasn't there a study saying height did NOT play a part in income, once you factor in the concomitant improvement in nutrition when growing up?
Anyway, I think there's selection bias here. Being baby-faced, particularly 20-30 years ago when CEO's started in the corporate world, probably helped blacks get their foot in the door.
I can also attest as somebody in their mid-20's, white, and baby-faced that people think of you as less experienced somehow, at least in your 20's. I have five years of experience now, but people still refer to me as a kid. I just blow it off, but I'm sure it's an obstacle to overcome in vying for a promotion down the road.
Posted by: mw at Nov 1, 2009 7:13:29 PM
I'll echo those who attack the story, but on two different grounds.
First, it seems like you'd need a control rating of non-CEO AA men, just to make sure they don't seem more baby-faced as a race.
Second, assuming there actually is correlation, where does anyone get off providing quotes that assume causation and then speculate on reasons? Maybe there's a rare gene that creates both BF looks and extreme genius in AA men. (I'm not suggesting any such thing, merely that there are infinite possibilities and the only way to draw a conclusion is science.)
Posted by: Scoop at Nov 1, 2009 7:18:23 PM
First, it seems like you'd need a control rating of non-CEO AA men, just to make sure they don't seem more baby-faced as a race.
They did this (follow the link to photos and charts).
Posted by: Dan at Nov 1, 2009 7:35:16 PM
Now I know why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Seriously, though, I don't think he has a baby face. Do they have a template of face sizes?
He looks more like Lincoln. And, he even has big ears. Did they do a study on narrow faced big ear candidates?
Posted by: Bill at Nov 1, 2009 8:12:16 PM
Or, white CEOs are selected for by aggression and social dominance. Black CEOs, who are assumed to be more socially dominant as a product of a demonstrably more macho culture, are selected more on the basis of competence.
In both cases, factors that (at least popularly) are perceived as rarer among that race.
Posted by: athelas at Nov 1, 2009 8:33:41 PM
Apparently, the entire concept of journalism -- as well as that of socially observant economists -- is now very brazenly in the tank for "Here's a vapid study that proves something I have always believed."
Someone claims that people are reluctant to give power to people who appear angry and/or psychopathic?
Clearly, that is proof that no white person will trust a black man without a "baby face."
You non-stop racialists -- you have the crazy.
Posted by: Jim at Nov 1, 2009 8:58:46 PM
obama wouldn't have even been elected for senator if he looked like mike tyson. i hate to say it.
Posted by: winston smith at Nov 1, 2009 9:03:16 PM
what happened...
Posted by: Vernunft at Nov 1, 2009 10:41:19 PM
"The country has shifted from "gut" thinking to cerebreality. Maybe there's hope for economics professors."
Yeah, chanting "hope and change" is a real indicator of a high IQ.
Posted by: Superheater at Nov 1, 2009 11:31:04 PM
I do not find a lot of "cerebreality" in voting patterns these days. But as for "celebrity", yes, that is plentiful.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at Nov 2, 2009 2:42:24 AM
Do Americans really tend to vote for the dominant male in Presidential elections? I'm not sure they do. Giuliani's campaign faltered pretty early on while most of America's past Presidents -- while charming and charismatic in their way -- don't really look the part of alpha male. Regardless of race, I think people are less likely to vote for someone who looks and acts intimidating. Americans tend to vote for charismatic, seemingly approachable people who they could see themselves inviting over for a beer, not someone who they could see themselves getting into a fight with.
Posted by: Ricardo at Nov 2, 2009 4:07:42 AM
Firstly, people seem surprised by the banality that applies to most studies.
Second, why do we even care about CEOs? To become a CEO for a major company, maybe you need everything to go just right and maybe that is due to pure luck. Why not just plan to be highly talented and be an entrepreneur instead.
Lastly, I don't like Obama, which means the rest of you are all racists.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 2, 2009 6:42:04 AM
Interesting. My impression is that presidents of HBCUs, however, do not seem to have baby faces.
Posted by: GG at Nov 2, 2009 8:06:32 AM
Giuliani may have a reputation as a tought prosecutor and a politican who will get down and dirty, but isn't he's short and talks with a lisp -- not exactly the image of virility and alpha-maleness, is it?
Posted by: Steve at Nov 2, 2009 12:36:51 PM
I don't really buy into this. It's a scientific fact that a higher level of melanin in one's skin means that they are more protected from sun damage and are less likely to develop as many wrinkles. Therefore, black men are more likely to be baby-faced than white men. Consequently, baby-faced white men will more likely be younger, whereas black men may have less wrinkles a bit later in life. Typically, someone younger will make less money than someone with years of experience. I'm not saying that it is not harder for black men to become CEO's. There is an obvious disproportion between the number of white and black CEO's; However, I don't think that this study is necessarily valid. Although there may be merit in these findings, they seem to disregard basic scientific factors which are in play.
Posted by: Amy Williams at Nov 2, 2009 4:51:45 PM
I totally agree with the poster above me. The fact that B.H. Obama has a higher melanin content would cause "baby-facedness." The melanin is akin to walking around with an extra layer of SPF 4 for your whole life*. My hypothesis on the subject is that his face is a picture of health for who he is; a black male in a temperate region. If he were white, we would (consciously or sub) have an expectation of wrinkles at his age, which would have correlation with good health.
*1 life = 50 years * 5 months / year * 28 days/month * 4 hours / day = 28,000 extra hours of sunscreen use at SPF 4
Posted by: STM at Nov 3, 2009 2:00:37 AM
How big is the sample size of black male Fortune 500 CEOs? Only five are pictured in the link.
This link says that only seven black men (and one black woman) have ever been CEOs of Fortune 500 firms, so it's probably too early to bother thinking about this study:
http://www.blackentrepreneurprofile.com/fortune-500-ceos/
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 3, 2009 7:01:15 AM
I wonder if testosterone levels (which tend to sharpen a man's facial features) play a role that leads to a culturally-specific reduction in achievement in school.
I'd like to see a similar study looking at AA versus caucasian faces of male business school grads, or baby-face versus SAT scores.
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Nov 3, 2009 3:48:50 PM
How has nobody raised 'paper bag' and 'talented tenth' questions? Even Steve Sailer lets them go.
There a real chance that the kind of black guys who win it all are guys who, like our President, are black and white.
Part of that could be that mixed-race guys--and their parents and grandparents--have been selected within the black community as the kind of men that were put up for success in the white world. That's not such a reach and would be easy to check if the men in this very small set have full biographies from magazine interviews, etc...
I'd guess that my guess has a higher chance of being right than the study does.
Posted by: tom at Nov 5, 2009 1:41:15 PM
Nice and Informative Blogs but by some editing u can did it much
better and for Editing just go to http://www.onlinedocumentconversion.com/ upload, convert to rtf & then edit in MS Word.
24x7, Pay pal, few cents per page (paid sites are better).
Caution!
Avoid Free sites or sites with no after sales support a NO NO.
e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJNbI0WCGhM&feature=PlayList&p=35EE182F86FB4A83&index=1
Posted by: LALIT at Nov 6, 2009 2:37:11 AM
