Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37061622›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2023

When less is not more: the effect of transparent masks on facial attractiveness judgment.

Yongseong Lee, Su Keun Jeong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yongseong LeeDepartment of Psychology, Chungbuk National University, Chungdae-ro 1, Seowon-Gu, Cheongju, 28644, Chungbuk, Korea.
Su Keun JeongDepartment of Psychology, Chungbuk National University, Chungdae-ro 1, Seowon-Gu, Cheongju, 28644, Chungbuk, Korea. skj@chungbuk.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0003-3548-6920
Chungbuk National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks have been widely used in daily life. Previous studies have suggested that faces wearing typical masks that occlude the lower half of the face are perceived as more attractive than face without masks. However, relatively little work has been done on how transparent masks that reveal the lower half of the face affect the judgment of facial attractiveness. To investigate the effect of transparent masks on the perceived attractiveness, in the current study, we asked participants to rate the attractiveness of faces without masks and with a typical opaque mask and a transparent mask. The results showed that faces wearing opaque masks were evaluated as more attractive than those wearing transparent masks or no masks. The benefit of opaque masks was more pronounced in faces that were initially evaluated as unattractive. Interestingly, wearing transparent masks decreased the perceived attractiveness of faces but only for the faces initially rated as attractive, possibly because of the visual distortion of the lower half of the face by transparent masks. In summary, we found that opaque and transparent masks have different effects on perceived attractiveness, depending on the attractiveness of faces. Given benefits of transparent masks in socio-emotional and cognitive processing, it would be important to further understand the effect of transparent masks on face information processing.

Indexed as

COVID-19JudgmentBeautyEmotionsHumansPandemicsCOVID-19Face masksFace occlusionFacial attractivenessTransparent masks

Identifiers

PMID37061622
PMCPMC10105537
OpenAlexW4365813627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.