Some research has suggested that investors prefer pitches made by men rather than women entrepreneurs, and physically attractive men entrepreneurs are even more successful than their physically unattractive counterparts. However, empirical evidence remains limited. We re-examine these findings using a large archival dataset with 9,285 entrepreneurs across 13 industries and 105 countries between the years of 2014 to 2018. Our results replicate the female penalty effect—women raised 12.9% less funds compared to men. However, we found that the physical attractiveness of the entrepreneurs has a negative main effect on startups’ success, and that this effect is only significant for men entrepreneurs.
AgtheM.SpörrleM.ManerJ. K. (2010). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation and decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1151–1154.
2.
AgtheM.SpörrleM.ManerJ. K. (2011). Does being attractive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(10), 1–13.
3.
AndersonC.JohnO. P.KeltnerD.KringA. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116.
BahlmannM. D. (2024). Physical attractiveness, same-sex stimuli, and male venture capitalists’ financial risk-taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1259143.
6.
BalachandraL.BriggsT.EddlestonK.BrushC. (2019). Don’t pitch like a girl! How gender stereotypes influence investor decisions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 43(1), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717728028
7.
BerggrenN.JordahlH.PoutvaaraP. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 8–15.
8.
BernsteinS.KortewegA.LawsK. (2017). Attracting early-stage investors: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Finance, 72(2), 509–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12470
9.
BrooksA. W.HuangL.KearneyS. W.MurrayF. E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4427–4431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321202111
CarnahanS.AgarwalR.CampbellB. A. (2012). Heterogeneity in turnover: The effect of relative compensation dispersion of firms on the mobility and entrepreneurship of extreme performers. Strategic Management Journal, 33(12), 1411–1430. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1991
12.
ChanE. Y. (2015). Physically-attractive males increase men’s financial risk-taking. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 407–413.
13.
ColomboM. G.FischC.MomtazP. P.VismaraS. (2022). The CEO beauty premium: Founder CEO attractiveness and firm valuation in initial coin offerings. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 16(3), 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1417
14.
ContiA.ThursbyJ.ThursbyM. (2013). Patents as signals for startup financing. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 61(3), 592–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12025
15.
ContigianiA. (2023). Experimentation and appropriability in early-stage ventures: Evidence from the US software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 119, 2128–2174. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3489
16.
CrandallC. S.ShermanJ. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93–99.
17.
DeliosA.ClementeE. G.WuT.TanH.WangY.GordonM.ViganolaD.ChenZ.DreberA.JohannessonM.PfeifferT., Generalizability Tests Forecasting Collaboration, & UhlmannE. L. (2022). Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(30), Article e2120377119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120377119
18.
DerksenM.MorawskiJ. (2022). Kinds of replication: Examining the meanings of “conceptual replication” and “direct replication”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1490–1505.
19.
DossingerK.WanbergC. R.ChoiY.LeslieL. M. (2019). The beauty premium: The role of organizational sponsorship in the relationship between physical attractiveness and early career salaries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.007
20.
FreibergB.MatzS. C. (2023). Founder personality and entrepreneurial outcomes: A large-scale field study of technology startups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(19), 2017. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215829120
21.
FruhenL. S.WatkinsC. D.JonesB. C. (2015). Perceptions of facial dominance, trustworthiness and attractiveness predict managerial pay awards in experimental tasks. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1005–1016.
22.
GuptaV. K.GoktanA. B.GunayG. (2014). Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.02.002
23.
GuptaV. K.TurbanD. B.BhaweN. M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1053
24.
GuptaV. K.TurbanD. B.WastiS. A.SikdarA. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00296.x
HamermeshD. S.BiddleJ. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174–1194.
27.
HanD. E.LaurentS. M. (2022). Beautiful seems good, but perhaps not in every way: Linking attractiveness to moral evaluation through perceived vanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000317
28.
HeilmanM. E.SaruwatariL. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(3), 360–372.
29.
HeilmanM. E.StopeckM. H. (1985). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance-based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex, and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(2), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90035-4
30.
HoenenS.KolympirisC.SchoenmakersW.KalaitzandonakesN. (2014). The diminishing signaling value of patents between early rounds of venture capital financing. Research Policy, 43(6), 956–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.006
31.
HuangL.JoshiP.WakslakC.WuA. (2021). Sizing up entrepreneurial potential: Gender differences in communication and investor perceptions of long-term growth and scalability. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 716–740.
32.
JiangH.WangZ.YangL.ShenJ.HahnJ. (2021). How rewarding are your rewards? A value-based view of crowdfunding rewards and crowdfunding performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(3), 562–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720928922
33.
JudgeT. A.HurstC.SimonL. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 742.
34.
KangJ. H.SolomonG. T.ChoiD. Y. (2015). CEOs’ Leadership styles and managers’ Innovative behaviour: Investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12125
35.
KanzeD.HuangL.ConleyM. A.HigginsE. T. (2018). We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 586–614.
36.
KingmaD. P.BaJ. L. (2015, December22). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015—Conference Track Proceedings. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6980
37.
KleinertS. (2024). The promise of new ventures’ growth ambitions in early-stage funding: On the crossroads between cheap talk and credible signals. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 48(1), 274–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587231164750
38.
LangfordT.MackinnonN. J. (2000). The affective bases for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695879
39.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.RubensteinA. J.LarsonA.HallamM.SmootM. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.
40.
LawsonC.LenzG. S.BakerA.MyersM. (2010). Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62(4), 561–593.
41.
LazukaR. F.WickM. R.KeelP. K.HarrigerJ. A. (2020). Are we there yet? Progress in depicting diverse images of beauty in Instagram’s body positivity movement. Body Image, 34, 85–93.
42.
LeeM.HuangL. (2018). Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organization Science, 29(1), 1–16.
43.
LeeS.PitesaM.PillutlaM.ThauS. (2015). When beauty helps and when it hurts: An organizational context model of attractiveness discrimination in selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.02.003
44.
LiangL.LinL.JinL.XieD.LiM. (2018). SCUT-FBP5500: A diverse benchmark dataset for multi-paradigm facial beauty prediction. 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR (pp. 1598–1603). Beijing, China: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2018.8546038
45.
LiaoZ.ZhangJ. H.WangN.BottomW. P.DeichmannD.TangP. M. (2023). The gendered liability of venture novelty. Academy of Management Journal, 67, 299–330. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.1425
46.
LyonsE.ZhangL. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programs?Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 85–112.
47.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
48.
MalmströmM.JohanssonJ.WincentJ. (2017). Gender stereotypes and venture support decisions: How governmental venture capitalists socially construct entrepreneurs’ potential. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 833–860.
NaultK. A.PitesaM.ThauS. (2020). The attractiveness advantage at work: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 1103–1139. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0134
51.
NgW.ShermanE. L. (2022). In search of inspiration: External mobility and the emergence of technology intrapreneurs. Organization Science, 33(6), 2300–2321.
52.
NguyenN.HidegI.EngelY.GodartF. (2023). Benevolent sexism and the gender gap in startup evaluation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 48, 506–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587231178865
53.
NishiiL. H.LeroyH. (2022). A multi-level framework of inclusive leadership in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 683–722.
54.
NosekB. A.HardwickeT. E.MoshontzH.AllardA.CorkerK. S.DreberA.FidlerF.HilgardJ.StruhlM. K.NuijtenM. B.RohrerJ. M.RomeroF.ScheelA. M.SchererL. D.SchönbrodtF. D.VazireS. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748.
55.
ParkhiO.VedaldiA.ZissermanA. (2015). Deep face recognition. BMVC 2015—Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2015 (pp. 1–12). Swansea, UK: BMVA Press. https://doi.org/10.5244/C.29.41
56.
PatelP. C.WolfeM. T. (2021). In the eye of the beholder? The returns to beauty and IQ for the self-employed. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(4), 487–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1323
57.
PengL.CuiG.ChungY.ZhengW. (2020). The faces of success: Beauty and ugliness premiums in e-commerce platforms. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920914861
58.
RobersonQ. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 69–88.
59.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
60.
RuffleB. J.ShtudinerZ. E. (2015). Are good-looking people more employable?. Management Science, 61(8), 1760–1776.
61.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2008). The face of success: Inferences from Chief Executive Officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19, 109–111.
62.
SeignerB. D. C.MilanovH. (2023). Mirror, mirror—A gendered lens on female entrepreneurs’ facial attractiveness in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 20, e00399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2023.e00399
63.
SolnickS. J.SchweitzerM. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 199–215.
64.
SvetekM. (2023). The role of entrepreneurs’ perceived competence and cooperativeness in early-stage financing. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 47(6), 2047–2076. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221127000
65.
Ter WalA. L.AlexyO.BlockJ.SandnerP. G. (2016). The best of both worlds: The benefits of open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks for new ventures’ success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 393–432.
66.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.
67.
TonoyanV.StrohmeyerR.JenningsJ. E. (2020). Gender gaps in perceived start-up ease: Implications of sex-based labor market segregation for entrepreneurship across 22 European countries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 181–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219835867
68.
WeedenJ.SabiniJ. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.635
69.
WhiteA. E.KenrickD. T.NeubergS. L. (2013). Beauty at the ballot box: Disease threats predict preferences for physically attractive leaders. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2429–2436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613493642
70.
XianH.JiangN.McAdamM. (2021). Negotiating the female successor–leader role within family business succession in China. International Small Business Journal, 39(2), 157–183.
71.
YuS. (2020). How do accelerators impact the performance of high-technology ventures?Management Science, 66(2), 530–552.
