I'm going to buck the trend and say that candidates with attractive photos are quite possibly actually more competent. When hiring, I consider the content of a resume and not its aesthetics. But the people who go the extra mile to add polish: An attractive, well-formatted resume; being well-dressed for an interview; and even adding polish to a photo - are likely candidates who express the added attention to detail I'm looking for in many roles. (Especially in design-focused roles.) Does it beat years of experience or technical competency? Absolutely not. But much like technical interviews not being a strong signal for a person's competency at a particular role they are still treated as a signal. You can have a polished photo without being an attractive person. So perhaps this study is actually measuring to some extent the perception of a person's professionalism and attention to detail rather than their inherent attractiveness. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Which isn't to say some people may be hired based on actual attractiveness rather than their perceived capabilities, which shouldn't be a factor generally. But if you're going to get indignant about people being hired based on looks then you'd better stop using sites more attractive than craigslist or products more attractive than crocs.