The Correlation between Height, Weight, and Income: Reevaluated

Justice Jiang

Course: B2000

Professor Foster

09.18.09

Abstract

Using a dataset from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the year 2008,

the correlation between height, weight, and income of American workers is computed. It was

found that, at a significance level of α = 0.01, both men and women living in the U.S. who are

tall (greater than 71” for men and greater than 65” for women) earn 2.9% and 3.2% more than

those who are considered average height, respectively. Both men and women who are short (less

than 68” for men and less than 62” for women) experience penalties in total income of 6.8% and

8.1%, respectively. Males’ income was positively correlated with their weight. Overweight

males (as defined by the body mass index, BMI) earned, on average, 9.5% more than normal

weight males. Females demonstrated the opposite relationship between weight and income, and

women who deviated from the normal weight range earned less.

I. Introduction

Historically, a person’s height or weight has been correlated with their income. The labor

market until the 20th century consisted mainly of physical labor. Income from jobs such as

farming or hunting, which demanded a lot of strength, would understandably be positively

correlated with ones height as well as weight. The taller and fitter the person was, the more

strenuous work they were able to endure, and therefore, the higher pay they would receive for

their labor. A recent study on coal miners in India found that miners with above average height

earned 9-13% more than other workers (Dinda, 2006). This is no surprise since coal mining is a

physically demanding job. The real question is why height and weight still determines income

when most of the labor today is not related to one’s physical abilities. “Theoretically, the

importance of height has evolutionary origins, because animals use height as an index for power

and strength when making fight-or-flight decisions” (Judge and Cable, 2003).

2

Recently, studies have shown that there still exists a relationship between one’s height

and income as well as their weight and income (Brunello and d’Hombres, 2007; Cawley, 2004;

Conley and Glauber, 2006; Dinda, 2006; Garcia and Quintana Domeque, 2006; Heineck, 2004;

Heilaman and Stopeck, 1985; Judge and Cable, 2004; Kennedy and Garcia, 1994; Mirta, 2001;

Sarlio-Lähteenkorva et al., 2004). Thus, the question arises as to why companies penalize their

workers for something that is not related to their education or cognitive abilities? Most jobs, in

the labor market today, do not require strenuous physical labor.

Judge and Cable found evidence that height is positively correlated with earnings (Judge

and Cable, 2003). Controlling for variables such as age, weight, and gender, height was found to

be positively correlated with earnings ranging from a correlation of r = 0.24 to 0.35, and with a

significance level of α = 0.01.

The purpose of this paper is to reevaluate the effect of height on one’s income, as well as

the effect of weight on one’s income. We also analyze the correlation between body mass index

(BMI) and income. Observing how one’s body mass index correlates with income reveals how

both height and weight interact in relation to income. The idea behind this comes from

(Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994) who found that non-attractiveness of men and women has a

negative impact on their wages. Hence, those with BMI’s which are categorized as obese or

overweight, may be interpreted by employers as not being attractive and thus, also have a

negative impact on their wages. It has been shown overweight women are discriminated against

in the labor market according to their wages (Conley and Glauber, 2006), this relationship has

been shown to be true for overweight men as well (Brunello, 2007). This may be due to a

psychological phenomenon that tall and slender people are viewed by many as authoritative and

3

motivated (Heineck, 2004), while short and obese people are prejudged to possess laziness and

unsuccessfulness (Harris et al., 1982; Frieze et al., 1990; Frieze et al.,1991).

All studies, which have been stated above, concluded that height has a positive

correlation with income, but not all have shown similar results according to the relationship

between weight and income: Conley et al (2006), Dinda (2006), and Cawley (2004) stated that a

female’s wage is negatively affected by an increase in weight. They also conclude that males,

either have no relationship (Conley and Glauber, 2006), or their income increases as their weight

increases (Dinda, 2006). Brunello (2007) contradicts these results and claims that the wages of

both males and females are negatively affected by increased weight.

The results found in (Dinda, 2006; Brunello, 2007; Cawley, 2004; Conley and Glauber,

2006; Heineck, 2004) are examined and tested by first finding the differences in means of height

and BMI. Next, three regressions are performed. The first regression uses continuous variables of

weight, height, and age. The second regression uses bands of BMI, height, and age in the form of

dummy variables. The third regression analyzes the same variables in the second regression, only

this time using interaction terms, to observe this relationship once again.

This paper is structured as follows: Section II contains a brief overview on the

background and previous research done on this topic. Section III presents the data and methods

used to obtain the results found in Section IV. Section V contains a brief discussion on the results

found and Section VI has concluding remarks.

II. Background and Previous Research

There have been many studies in the past which have addressed discrimination in the

labor market with regards to age, gender, race, and education. Of these demographics which

were studied, height and weight were also included in the pool of articles. One’s appearance

4

plays a major role in one’s total income. This is due to the fact that one’s appearance is subject to

the scrutiny of an employer.

As previously stated, the height of a person can give the impression that they are

authoritative, as well as capable (Heineck, 2004). With these preconceived traits, taller people

also gain higher positions in the labor force as well as a better pay (Heilman and Stopeck, 1985;

Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994). Their shorter counterparts tend to be penalized in their wages

(Heineck, 2004). There also is evidence that individuals from low socio-economic groups are

shorter than individuals from higher socio-economic groups (Boström and Diderichsen, 1997).

Tall women in managerial or professional occupations receive a wage premium of about

2.5% with a one-inch increment in height (Mirta, 2001). Another study, which further proved

that height and income are positively correlated, was Judge and Cable’s (2004), which concluded

that each one-inch increase in height results in an increase in annual earnings of, on average,

$789 more a year.

Although much attention has been directed at height and weight as determinant of

income, the underlying cause of income discrepancies has been attributed to appearance or

attractiveness (Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994). We use body mass index to quantify

attractiveness in the regressions presented in Section IV. In a previous study (Brunello, 2007), a

10% increase in the average body mass index reduces the real earnings of males and females by

3.27% and 1.86% respectively.

Other studies negate Brunello’s (2007) results and conclude that overweight males

actually gain a wage premium of 9% in comparison to males in the normal weight range (Dinda,

2006), or are not affected by it (Conley and Glauber, 2006). Rather, only obese females were

5

found to have a negative income of about 18% comparative to females in the normal weight

range (Conley and Glauber, 2006).

In this study, all of the previous findings will be reexamined as it explores the effects of

both height and weight on total income for U.S. workers.

III. Data and Method

The data, which was used in this particular study, was from The Behavioral Risk Factor

Surveillance System (BRFSS)1. The (BRFSS) is a collaborative project of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is an ongoing data collection program designed to

measure behavioral risk factors for the adult population (18 years of age or older) living in

households. The basic dataset consisted of 414,509 participants living within the United States or

territories. The data was collected throughout 2008 by means of telephone interviews, and

personal interviews.

The dependent variable for all regressions was either total income or the logarithm of

total income. The individual’s height and weight were the prime variables studied in the

regression and both were treated as exogenous with respect to the total income. Three OLS

models were observed:

Tis = β₀ + β₁His + β₂Wis + β₃Ais + β₄Yis + β₅Dis + εi

(1)where Ti is the total income of individual (i), of sex (s); β₀ is the constant; His is the continuous

height variable; Wis is the continuous weight variable; Ai is the continuous age variable; Yis is

the polynomial variable being observed (HeightSq, WeightSq, and AgeSq); Dis is the vector of

all other exogenous dummy variables (race, education, geographical location, and health); and εi

is an error term. Controlling for sex was done by filtering males when observing females and 1 The web link to the dataset <http://www.cdc.gov/BRFSS/technical_infodata/surveydata/2008.htm#survey>

6

vice-versa. Three different models were utilized in this study. For Model I, Yis equals

“HeightSq”. For Model II, Yis equals “WeightSq”. For Model III, Yis equals “AgeSq”. Yis

accounts for the nonlinear relationship between total income and height/weight/age. Each

squared term was observed in a different regression in order not to have them interfere with one

another. The second OLS equation is

ln Tis = β₀ + β₁His’ + β₂Bis’ + β₃Ais’ + βDis + εi,

(2)where Hi’ is the dummy height variable of the individual; Bi’ is the dummy body mass index

variable of the individual; β₃Ais’ is the dummy age variable of the individual; Dis is the vector of

all other exogenous dummy variables (age, education, and race dummies); and εi is an error

term. The third OLS equation is

ln Tis = β₀ + β₁(His’)(His) + β₂(Bis’)(Bis) + β₃(Ais’)(Ais) + βDis + εi,

(3)where (His’)(His) is the interaction term between the height dummy variable and the continuous

height variable; (Bis’)(Bis) is the interaction term between the body mass index dummy variable

and the continuous body mass index variable; (Ais’)(Ais) is the interaction term between the age

dummy variable and the continuous age variable; Di is the vector of all other exogenous dummy

variables (age, education, and race); and εi is an error term.

Table 1Summary of adult American workers from sample

Population Mean Standard deviationTotal Income (Dollars) 44,549 $48,121.00 28713.607Reported Height (Inches) 44,549 66.50 3.919Reported Weight (Pounds)

44,549 175.65 42.887

Age (Year) 44,549 48.82 12.796BMI 44,549 27.84 6.075

7

Note: Age is defined as men and women between the ages of 18 and 99.Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Code Book Report, 2008

Ten main exogenous variables were observed and controlled in this study. The way in

which these variables were modified and controlled is as follows:

Total Income (The study’s dependent variable) was grouped by a range of incomes

within the CDC dataset; beginning with (1 = Less than $10,000) and then increased in

increments of $5,000 until: (6 = $35,000 – Less than $50,000), (7 = $50,000 – Less than

$75,000) and (8 = $75,000 or more). These measures were not acceptable since the increments in

which the income was measure varied. Instead, the median of each group replaces the values (1-

8), with 8 being transformed into $100,000 since it initially stood for “$75,000 or more”. In the

survey “Total Income” was defined as “[the participants] annual household income from all

sources”. Since this study calls for the total income of each specific person, a filter was applied

to only include participants who stated there was only one adult in the household. This implied

that the participant was the only person living in the household.

Age was grouped in bands of ten years, besides the bands “18-24” and “65 and above”. It

also was studied as a continuous variable. The nonlinear relationship between age and total

income was taken into consideration, thus “Agesq” was introduced into the regression as well.

Weight was observed as a continuous variable. The nonlinear relationship between

weight and total income was taken into consideration, thus “Weightsq” was introduced into the

regression as well.

Height was grouped for the males as: “Male Height Below 68 in.”, “Male Height 68 – 71

in.”, and “Male Height Above 71 in.” The females’ heights were grouped as: “Female Height

Below 62 in.”, Female Height 62 – 65 in.”, and “Female Height Above 65 in.” The height bands

8

were representative of the results found in the “National Health Statistics Reports,” by Margaret

A. McDowell, et al. (2008).Using the percentiles in McDowell’s study, bands were made. The

first band consisted of height observations below the 25th percentile. The second band included

height observations in the 25th percentile to 75th percentile. The third band included observations

above the 75th percentile. The regression did not include those with a height above seven feet tall.

There were seventeen participants in total who were above seven feet tall. The decision to

exclude outliers was made in order to exclude observations of people whose height may not be

considered in the “socially acceptable” range, for those above this height level may be penalized

in the labor market (Heineck, 2004). Height was also observed as a continuous variable. The

nonlinear relationship between height and total income was also observed, thus “Heightsq” was

introduced into the regression. Despite the exclusion of the outliers, it is postulated that the

nonlinear relationship may reinforce Heineck’s results. According to Table 2, there appears to be

a positive relationship between height and income for both males and females. As height

increases so does their average total income. Their differences in means will further validate this

finding.

Table 2Total yearly earnings of male employed Americans by heightMale Height Band Population Average Income Standard deviationsHeight above 71 inches 5253 $57,872.17 29629.468-71 inches (reference height)

7113 $55,146.91 29161.9

Height below 68 inches 2563 $50,272.14 29081.2Total 14929

Female Height BandHeight above 65 inches 10947 $47,225.04 28120.562-65 inches (reference 15127 $43,987.41 27422.1

9

height)Height below 62 inches 3546 $38,427.10 26073.5Total 29620Table 2.1Height Percentiles (Inches)Percentiles Male Female10 66 6125 68 6350 70 657590

7274

6668

Employment status was categorized as: “Employed For Wages”, “Self-Employed”,

“Out of work for more than 1 year”, Out of work for less than 1 year”, “Home maker”,

“Student”, “Retired”, and “Unable to work”. Of the sub-groups not included in the regression

were: “Self-employed”, “A home maker”, “Retired”, “Unable to work”, and “Refused (to

answer)”. Height was not as crucial in determining income for those who are self-employed

(Cinnirella, 2009). The regression was restricted to only those who were employed for wages and

students. The students which are also employed may have found the occupation of “student” was

a better demographic description, but these participants can also be categorized as “employed for

wages”. Since observations with zero income were filtered, these students working for wages are

able to be captured and utilized in this regression as well.

Education was broken up into four groups: “No High School”, “Grade 12 or GED”,

“Some College”, and “College graduate”.

Race had classifications as “White”, “African American”, “Asian”, “American Indian”,

“Native Hawaiian”, and “Hispanic”. In the BRFSS survey, there was a specific question which

asked if the participant were Hispanic. All the different races defined in this study reported that

they were not Hispanic in this separate question, otherwise they were considered “Hispanic”.

10

Overall Health was scored by a rating of 1 to 5; 1 being “excellent” and 5 being “poor”.

This was at the participant’s discretion. The study did not include in the population those who

reported their health as “poor”. By not including participants with poor health in the regression,

the chance of error is reduced. For instance, a person who is tall and has a normal body mass

index may have a low total income due to physical restrictions which are not severe enough to

consider that person completely handicapped.

Geographical Location was grouped by each region of the United States as:

“Northeast”, “Midwest”, “South”, and “West”.

Body Mass Index consisted of groups such as: “Obese”, “Overweight”, “Normal

Weight”, and “Underweight”. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the

formula for calculation one’s body mass index is: weight (lb) / [height (in)]2 x 703. BMI’s below

18.5 are considered underweight. BMI’s ranging between 18.5 and 24.9 are considered normal

weight. BMI’s ranging between 25.0 and 29.9 are considered overweight. BMI’s 30.0 and above

are considered obese. According to Table 3, the majority of this dataset contained observations

which were overweight. It also appears that males whom are overweight or obese earn more than

those who are normal weight, and that females who are normal weight earn the most. Their

differences in means will further validate this find.

Table 3Total yearly earnings of employed Americans by BMI Male BMI Population Average Income Standard deviationsUnderweight 96 $45,026.04 28553.95Normal Weight (reference BMI)

4020 $52,866.29 29573.8

Overweight 6595 $57,350.64 29410.1Obese 4218 $54,537.10 29076.3

11

Total 14929

Female BMIUnderweight 497 $43,868.21 29304.2Normal Weight(reference BMI)

10818 $48,133.67 29181.9

Overweight 9223 $44,191.97 27307.5Obese 9081 $40,576.48 25399.0Total 29620 Table 3.1BMI PercentilesPercentiles Male Female10 22.38 20.8025 24.40 23.1750 27.12 26.607590

30.5134.43

31.0936.31

After grouping the variables, a filter was applied to refine the regression. Total income

was filtered so that it only included values greater than 99. Filtering removed irrelevant values

such as 77 and 99, which were labeled as “Don’t know” and “Refused”. Including these values

skews the results. This was true for other variables as well such as weight and height.

After setting all the controls for the variables, and refining the data to avoid any biased

results, the sample was left with 49,181 valid observations (11.86% of the total number of

observations from the dataset). This included 14,929 male observations, and 29,620 female

observations. Precautions for heteroskedasticity were applied by using a macro written by

Andrew F. Hayes, at Ohio State University, called “hreg.sps”, before any regression was

performed.

IV. Results

Total income increased as the participants heights increased, for both males and females

(Table 2). The t-statistics for both of the sexes prove that their differences in mean are

12

statistically significant between all the height bands (Table 4). This was the first step in

concluding that one’s income and height is positively correlated.

Table 4Results of t-statistic, in absolute value, for equality of mean total income for different height-bands Male Height Band Height above 71

inches68-71 inches Height below 68

inches

Height above 71 inches 5.09 10.7868-71 inches 7.27Height below 68 inches

Female Height Band Height above 65 inches

62-65 inches Height below 62 inches

Height above 65 inches 9.27 17.1262-65 inches 11.32Height below 62 inches

Overweight men earned the highest average income, while normal weight women earned

the highest income (Table 3). The t-statistics, from their differences in mean, prove that the

highest average total income for both genders have differences which are statistically significant

relative to each sex’s reference body mass index, normal weight, (Table 5). For females, this was

the first step in concluding that one’s weight, relative to their height, is correlated with income.

For males, this is the first step in proving that the relationship between weight and total income is

different from that of females. The regressions on the variables of height and income, and weight

and income, will provide further evidence on the results found from Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 5Results of t-statistic, in absolute value, for equality of mean total income for different body mass indexesMale BMI Obese Overweight Normal Weight UnderweightObese 4.89 2.58 3.23Overweight 7.59 4.20Normal Weight 2.66Underweight

13

Female BMI Obese Overweight Normal Weight UnderweightObese 9.28 19.52 2.45Overweight 9.87 0.24Normal Weight 3.17Underweight

Observing the correlation between height and income; weight and income; age and

income, using polynomial variables, allowed for this study to estimate the slopes for each

relationship. Upon observation of Table 6 (see page 20), Eq. (1), the following statistics were

calculated: for males, at α = 0.01, each marginal increase in height equates to a marginal increase

in total income by $290.47 (Model III). This supports Judge and Cable’s (2004) finding that each

one-inch increase in height results in a $789 increase in income a year. The inclusion of heights

squared term reveals that, at α = 0.05 this positive correlation changes after 74in (90th percentile

Table 2.1), where the marginal increase in height translates into a negative marginal return in

total income. This supports Heineck’s (2004) findings, which suggests that there is a wage

penalty for males above a socially accepted height. At α = 0.01, each marginal increase in weight

equates to a marginal increase in total income by $42.15 (Model III). Above 267 lbs, marginal

increase in weight translates into a negative marginal return in total income. At α=0.01, each

marginal increase in weight equates to a marginal increase in total income by $175.30 (Model I).

The marginal increase in total income, relative to each marginal increase in a male’s age, became

negative after 52 years old.

For females, α = 0.01, each marginal increase in height equates to a marginal increase in

total income by $530.83 (Model III). The inclusion of heights squared term reveals that this

positive correlation changes after 71in, where the marginal increase in height translates into a

negative marginal return in total income. At α = 0.01, each marginal increase in weight equates

14

to a marginal decrease in total income by -$21.39 (Model III). Weight was not statistically

significant for females; however, if “Height (Inches)” was removed from the regression the

values became significant at α = 0.01. With the new values for the weight coefficients, the point

at which marginal return on total income become negative with relation to a female’s weight is

after 192lbs. Weight was not as strongly correlated with total income as height. By removing

height, the correlation between weight and income was statistically significant, which enabled

the calculation of the peak of the slope. The marginal increase in total income, relative to each

marginal increase in a female’s age, became negative after 52 years old. Visual representations

of these polynomial equations are viewable in Table 6.1 (see page 21).

Table 7 (see page 22), Eq (2), supports the hypothesis that taller workers earn more. Male

workers who are tall earn 2.9% more and those who are short earn 6.8% less than workers who

are in the reference range. Female workers who are tall earn 3.2% more and those who are short

earn 8.1% less than the reference height. This result supports Heineck’s (2004) study, which

finds that taller male German workers gain 1 to 1.3% and taller females gain about 1% more than

the reference height; while the shorter male workers end up earning 3 to 6% and the shorter

females earn around 2% less than the reference height. Male workers who are overweight or

obese actually tend to earn more than those who are normal weight by 9.5% to 4.7%,

respectively. Females who are overweight or obese are penalized with a total income that is 2.7%

to 8.3% lower than a female who is normal weight, respectively. This provides further support

for both Dinda (2006) and Conley et al (2006) which concludes that male’s BMI’s have a

positive relationship with their total income, but for females, obesity is associated with a

reduction in their wages compared to those in the range of normal weight.

15

Next, height, weight, and BMI are considered as segmented continuous variables. The

results from Table 8 (see page 23), Eq. (3), indicate that for each additional inch increment in

height, the mean total income of male and female workers whom are tall increases by 0.04% or

0.05% more than their reference height, respectively. Again, this supports Heineck’s (2004)

results. According to Table 8, every incremental increase in BMI results in a 0.3% increase in

total earnings for males who are overweight; once a male is obese, this then turns into a 0.1%

increase. For women there is a negative effect. For every marginal increase in BMI, the mean

total income of overweight women decreases by 0.1%, and for obese women the negative effect

increases and total income decreases by 0.3%. Again, this supports both Dinda (2006) and

Conley et al (2006), as well as negates Brunello’s (2007) results. Table 8 also reinforces the

findings in both Table 6 and Table 7.

A scatter plot of these correlations does not present the results found in this study. The

dependent variable “total income” is not continuous, thus the scatter plot only shows a dense

congregation of points at each level of total income. These discrete points in the graph are not

distinguishable visually.

V. Discussion

Excluding the relationship between weight and income for males, it is now clear that

height and weight are relative to one’s total income. The results of this study are parallel to other

similar studies done on this topic, and they negate others. This is probably due to differing study

designs as well as heterogeneous populations being studied, in terms of different countries being

studied and other factors.

Measuring the BMI of an individual is only the first step in measuring someone’s

physical appearance. One’s BMI ignores the specification of fat to fat-free weight due to muscle

16

mass and bones (e.g. Barry Bonds is considered overweight). Muscle mass can be seen as

attractive since it shows that they are healthy and enabled. By this view point, muscle mass can

actually promote one’s physical appearance, which is a factor in explaining why males who are

overweight gain more than males who are have a normal weight. Females tend to not have as

much muscle as males, which is why their BMI measurement is strongly related to their physical

appearance. The fat mass of an observation should have also been taken into consideration, since

it is the percentage of fat which would be deemed unattractive to employers. This measurement

was not allowed to be studied due to the variables available in the dataset.

An alternate hypothesis as to why overweight males earn more is because they may be

working so much, that they are not able to exercise. The stress also can induce them to eat more

and gain more weight. This in turn would cause the males relationship between weight and

income to be the opposite of females weight and income relationship. Controlling for the amount

of time one works as well as the activities one does outside of work would have lead to less

biased results. These variables were also not available in the dataset used.

The dataset limited number of variables which could be controlled as well as the

variables used. The BRFSS’s original grouping of income did not ensure accurate results. Once

the data reached up to $75,000 is was classified as “$75,000 or more” and the variables before

that increased from a five-thousand dollar gap, to a fifteen –thousand dollar gap, and then a

twenty-five-thousand dollar gap. Grouping the participants’ income levels in this manner limits

the results. Observing total income as a continuous variable would have allowed for a more

accurate analysis. Taking the median of each grouping allowed for a slightly more accurate

regression. Transforming the value “8” ($75,000 or more) to $100,000 also permits the

observation of high earners, but this was only an estimate of the average income in this grouping.

17

In the grouping of “$75,000 or more”, there are approximately 96,400 people, which is almost

one-fourth of the total sample. This is a huge disadvantage when calculating the correlation.

Another issue that occurred was the fact that this survey did not include general

occupations of the working class. One’s occupation may change the degree of the correlation

between height and income due to the key roles that one is entitled to under different

occupations. A telemarketer does not utilize their height in order to persuade their consumers

into purchasing their product, which may be the opposite case for a car salesman. The data also

did not take into account part-time work and full-time work. The employment was specified as

anyone who is working for wages. This also affects the data since part-time workers often make

less than full-time workers.

The results were restricted to only those who lived in the house by themselves. This

forced a lot of the observations to be omitted. In turn, bias may have been created. The mean,

median, and mode of age in the sample were approximately around fifty years old. Older adults

living alone are more prone to being depressed (Cheng, 2008). This indicates that the sample had

a higher chance of including observations with depression. Since depression negatively affects

one’s wage, this allows for biased results (Cseh, 2008).

Although these restrictions on the dataset are valid, this study still was able to produce

the same results as prior studies. In the future, the time at work, fat mass, as well as activities

outside of work should be controlled in addition to the variables already incorporated in this

study.

VI. Conclusion

Using polynomial expressions, dummy variables, and interaction terms, the 2008 BRFSS

dataset was calculated and analyzed in depth. The results show that males and females heights

18

are associated with total income. Females weight is negatively correlated with total income,

while for males, weight is positively correlated. In the U.S., males who are considered tall gain

an income premium of 2.9% over males who are considered normal height. Females who are tall

earn 3.2% more than average height females. Males who are overweight gain 9.5% more than

those who are within the normal BMI weight rating, and females who either have a lower BMI or

a higher BMI than the normal rating are penalized. These results are statistically significant α =

0.01. The correlation between one’s height and income, as well as one’s weight and income, has

been proven to be correlated with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.443 for males and r = 0.533

for females2. Although the dataset restricted the ability to further explore the correlation between

ones height and income, as well as their weight and income, the results found in this study still

support the prior results found in other studies.

“Physical height deserves equal footing with other types of physical attributes that garner

serious scholarly attention, such as attractiveness and weight.” (Judge and Cable 2004)

Table 6Results of height and weight effects on total income of American workersVariables

Model I Males Model II

Model III

Height (Inches) 3016.458** 148.454* 290.466***Height² -20.474* ― ―Weight (Pounds)Weight²Age (Years)Age²African AmericanAsian

53.797**―

175.299***―

-6342.207***5125.7***

308.556***-0.577 ***167.766***―-6416.696***5754.257***

42.152***―1949.319***-18.590***-6448.424***5469.657***

2 This was calculated from the √ R ² in Table 6, and then compared with the formula |r|≥ 2√n

to see the

relationship.

19

Native HawaiianAmerican IndianOther (Non-Hispanic)Multiracial (Non-Hispanic)Hispanic

-660.982-8834.523***-3808.901*-3794.514**-4551.906***

-231.562-8926.132***-3763.020-3551.038**-4695.241***

352.138-8937.185***-2803.289-3407.806**-4098.507***

Midwest RegionSouth RegionWest RegionGrades 12 or GEDSome CollegeCollege GradVery Good HealthGood HealthFair Health

-7446.059***-1529.923***-2501.45***7969.114***15219.839***30668.465***-4750.665***-9985.847***15638.658***

-7430.174***-1566.521***-2509.214***7990.277***15200.266***30654.823***-4898.783***10068.592***-15420.9***

-7538.886***-1469.718**-2680.356***6683.3***13823.528***29181.372***-4937.022***10103.332***15660.593***

R² .214 .216 .229

Model IFemalesModel II Model III

Height (Inches) 6797.966*** 552.324*** 530.829***Height² -48.109*** ― ―Weight (Pounds)Weight²Age (Years)Age²African AmericanAsianNative HawaiianAmerican IndianOther (Non-Hispanic)Multiracial (Non-Hispanic)Hispanic

-11.326***―122.494***―-3693.720***4205.276***470.767-6913.162***-366.996-2160.052**-5745.677***

25.441 (64.571***)-.097*(-.168***)121.325***―-3785.885***4148.402***326.243-6941.211***-426.387-2187.195**-5940.148***

-21.389***―2086.786***-20.049***-3518.381***4823.456***769.634-6454.084***223.719-1517.247-5811.193***

Midwest RegionSouth RegionWest RegionGrades 12 or GEDSome CollegeCollege GradVery Good HealthGood HealthFair Health

7511.169***2056.857***-3580.653***7058.181***14250.582***33339.656***-3507.319***-7937.230***-11799.783***

-7514.132***-2044.274***-3591.289***7157.323***14367.246***33476.906***3557.391***7993.350***11835.369***

-7437.960***-2126.792***-3994.198***6553.431***13400.304***31713.049***-3569.661***-7956.451***-11984.496***

R² .272 .272 .294Note: (i) Values were measure in U.S. Dollars. (ii) (***), (**),and (*) denote statistically significant at a 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. ( iii) Dummy variables were used for Region, Education, and Health. (iiii) Variables which were included in the constant were: “White”, “Northeast Region”, “No High School”, and “Excellent Health”. ( iiiii) Males and females were regressed separately. (iiiiii) The values in parenthesis in the Females Model II for “Weight (Pounds)” and “WeightSq” were computed not including “Height (Inches)”.

Table 6.1Polynomial Charts

20

1 18 35 52 69 86 1031201371541711882052222392562732900

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Weight V.S. Total Income

Males WeightFemales Weight

Chan

ge In

Tot

al In

com

e

x-axis is weight in lbs

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 770

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Height & Age V.S Total Income

Males HeightFemales HeigthMales AgeFemales Age

Chan

ge In

Tot

al In

com

e

x-axis is height in inches and age in years

Table 7

21

Results of height-dummy, age-dummy, and BMI-dummy with respect to the log of total income of American workersVariable Males FemalesTall (Height Above 71in)Normal (Height 68in-71in)Short (Height Below 68in)Tall (Height Above 65in)Normal (Height 62in-65in)Short (Height Below 62in)Under WeightNormal WeightOver WeightObese WeightAge 18-24Age 25-34

.029***Reference Height-.068***―――-11.8**Reference BMI.095***.047***Reference Age.308***

―――.032***Reference Height-.081***-.089***Reference BMI-.027***-.083***Reference Age.271***

Age 35-44 .475*** .478***Age 45-54 .472*** .545***Age 55-64 .468*** .516***Age 65-Above .308*** .350***African AmericanAsianNative HawaiianAmerican IndianOther Race (Non Hispanic)Multiracial (Non Hispanic)HispanicGrades 12 or GEDSome CollegeCollege GradMidwest RegionSouth RegionWest RegionR²

-.157***.094**-.091-.252***-.101**-.093**-.144***.264***.425***.728***-.131***-.024*-.040***.197

-.107***.047-.054-.183***-.008-.079***-.215***.324***.538***.975***-.163***-.060***-.074***.284

Note: (i) Values represent the change in percentage of an individual’s total income relative to the reference variable. (ii) (***), (**), and (*) denote statistically significant at a 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. (iii) Variables which were included in the constant were: “Height 68in-71in”, “Height 62in-75in”, “Normal Weight”, “Age18-24”,“White”, “No High School”, and “Northeast Region”. (iiii) Males and females were regressed separately.

Table 8

22

Results of interaction (height x dummy), (age x dummy), and (BMI x dummy) with respect to the log of total income of American workersVariable Males FemalesTall (Height Above 71in)Normal (Height 68in-71in)Short (Height Below 68in)Tall (Height Above 65in)Normal (Height 62in-65in)Short (Height Below 62in)Under WeightNormal WeightOver WeightObese WeightAge 18-24Age 25-34

.0004***Reference Height-.001***―――-.007**Reference BMI.003***.001***Reference Age.009***

―――.0005***Reference Height-.001***-.005***Reference BMI-.001***-.003***Reference Age.008***

Age 35-44 .011*** .011***Age 45-54 .009*** .010***Age 55-64 .007*** .008***Age 65-Above .004*** .004***African AmericanAsianNative HawaiianAmerican IndianOther Race (Non Hispanic)Multiracial (Non Hispanic)HispanicGrades 12 or GEDSome CollegeCollege GradMidwest RegionSouth RegionWest RegionR²

-.158***.094**-.088-.252***-.102**-.096**-.146***.265***.428***.730***-.131***-.024*-.039***.196

-.104***.042-.051-.183***-.006-.076***-.214***.323***.539***.975***-.162***-.059***-.073***.284

Note: (i) Values represent the change in percentage of an individual’s total income relative to the reference variable. (ii) (***), (**), and (*) denote statistically significant at a 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. (iii) Variables which were included in the constant were: “Height 68in-71in”, “Height 62in-75in”, “Normal Weight”, “Age18-24”,“White”, “No High School”, and “Northeast Region”. (iiii) Males and females were regressed separately.

References

23

Boström, G. and F. Diderichsen, 1997, Socioeconomic differentials in misclassification of height, weight and body mass index based on questionnaire data, International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(4), 860-866.

Brunello, G. and D’Hombres, B., 2007. Does body weight affect wages? Evidence from Europe. Economics and Human Biology, 5, 519.

Cawley, J., 2004, The impact of obesity on wages, Journal of Human Resources 39, 451-474.

Cheng, Sheung-Tak, Fung, Helene H., and Chan Alfred C.M., 2008, Living status and psychological well-being: Social comparison as a moderator in later life, Aging & Mental Health, 12(5), 654-662.

Cinnirella, Francisco, Joachim Winter, 2009, Size Matters! Body Height and Labor Market Discrimination: A Cross-European Analysis. CESifo Working Paper, 2733, 1-2.

Conley, D. and Glauber, R., 2006. Gender, body mass and socioconomic status: New evidence from the PSID, Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, 17, 253-275.

Cseh, Attilia. (2008) The Effects Of Depressive Symptoms on Earnings, Southern Economic Journal, 75(2), 383-409

Dinda, Soumyananda, Gangopadhyay, P.K., Chattopadhyaya, B.P., Saiyed, H.N., Pal, M., and Bharati, P., 2006, Height, weight and earnings among coalminers in India, Economics and Human Biology, 4, 342-350

Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E. and Good, D. C.,1990, Perceived and actual discrimination in the salaries of male and female managers, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 46-67.

Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E. and Russell, J.,1991, Attractiveness and income for men and women in management, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1039-1057.

Garcia, J. and Quintana Domeque, C., 2006. Obesity, employment and wages in Europe, Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, 17, 187-217.

Hamermesh, D. and Biddle, J., 1994, Beauty and the labour market, American Economic Review, 84, 1174-1194.

Healthy Weight – it’s not a diet, it’s a lifestyle, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 28 July 209. Web. 31 October 2009. < http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/index.html>.

Heilaman, M. E. and Stopeck, M. H., 1985, Attractiveness and corporate success: diVerential causal attributions for males and females, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 70, 379-388.

24

Heineck, Guido, 2004. Up in the Skies? The Relationship between Body Height and Earnings in Germany. Labour, 19(3), 469-489.

Harris, M. B., Harris, R. J. and Bochner, S., 1982, Fat, four-eye, and female: stereotypes of obesity, glasses and gender, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 503-516.

Judge, Timothy A., and Cable, Daniel .M., 2004, The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: preliminary test of a theoretical model, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 89(3), 428-421.

Kennedy, E. and Garcia, M., 1994, Body mass index and economic productivity, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, S45-S53.

McDowell, Margaret A., Fryar, Cheryl D., Ogden, Cynthia L., Flegal, Katherine M., 2008, Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2003–2006, National Health Statistics Reports, 10, 14-16. CDC. Web. 4 December 2009.

Mirta, Aparana, 2001, Effects of Physical Attributes on the Wages of Males and Females, Economics and Human Biology, 4, 342-350.

Sarlio-Lähteenkorva, S., Silventoinen, K., and Lahelma, E., 2004, Relative weight and income at different levels of socioeconomic status. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 468-472.

25