ArticleScientific reports2019
Different influences of facial attractiveness on judgments of moral beauty and moral goodness.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Media multitasking and the aesthetic brain: neural sensitivity to abstraction in the digital age.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Aesthetic Impact of Orthognathic Surgery vs. Orthodontic Camouflage in Class II Division 1 Patients with Convex Facial Profile: A Follow-Up Using Combined Frontal and Profile Views.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Reevaluating the beautiful is moral stereotype by examining the impact of personal liking and belief in a just world.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Effect of Moral Behavior on Facial Attractiveness.Psychology research and behavior management · 2023Article
- Is Aesthetic Good? A Study on the Aesthetic and Vitality Judgment of Pictorial Representations of the Dead, Saints and Non-Saints.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Neural responses to facial attractiveness in the judgments of moral goodness and moral beauty.Brain structure & function · 2022Article
- Toward a Universal Measure of Facial Difference Using Two Novel Machine Learning Models.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Self-Perceived Physical Attractiveness and Moral Intuitions as Mediators Between Somatic-Parental Effort and Mating Orientation.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Are beauty and goodness the same? The relationship between beauty and goodness has long been a controversial issue in the fields of philosophy, aesthetics, ethics and psychology. Although many empirical studies have explored moral judgment and aesthetic judgment separately, only a few studies have compared the two. Whether these two judgments are two different processes or the same process with two different labels remains unclear. To answer this question, the present study directly compared the influence of facial attractiveness on judgments of moral goodness and moral beauty and revealed distinct contributions of imaging perceptions to these two judgments. The results showed that in the moral beauty judgment task, participants gave higher scores to characters with attractive faces compared with characters with unattractive faces, and larger P200 and LPP were elicited in the unattractive-face condition compared with the attractive-face condition; while in the moral goodness judgment task, there was no significant difference between the two conditions of either behaviour or ERP data. These findings offer important insights into the understanding and comparison of the processes of moral judgment and aesthetic judgment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.