Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40596369›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Ethics trumps resources in women's and men's evaluations of potential mates and competitors.

Sethu Karthikeyan, Toe Aung, Maryanne L Fisher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sethu KarthikeyanPace University, New York, NY, USA. skarthikeyan@pace.edu.
Toe AungImmaculata University, Malvern, PA, USA.
Maryanne L FisherSaint Mary's University, Halifax, CN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Just as kindness is prioritized in mate selection, warmth and fairness are often favored in cooperative social interactions, sometimes over competence and wealth, suggesting that these traits may influence social status. We conducted three studies to examine how heterosexual men (N = 193) and women (N = 178) from the U.S. evaluate men's faces for mating- and status-relevant traits, both alone and in combination with vignettes describing their economic resources and ethical reputation. The vignettes presented all men as generally smart, nurturant, and healthy, but pitted economic resources against ethical reputation surrounding care and fairness. Study 1, pitting men's ethics against their resources, found that an ethical reputation enhanced ratings of long-term mating attractiveness, prestige, intelligence, and kindness, but short-term mating attractiveness and physical dominance ratings were unaffected. Study 2, pitting men's parent's ethics against parental resources, yielded results consistent with Study 1. Study 3, pitting men's ethical history related to their adolescence with their current resources, found similar results to studies 1 and 2 with one key difference: women lowered prestige ratings for men with an unethical past, and men lowered physical dominance ratings for these men. The discussion reassesses notions of status and resources, exploring their relative significance in mating evaluations.

Indexed as

Sexual BehaviorSexual PartnersAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAltruismMate preferencesPrestigeReputationResourcesStatus

Identifiers

PMID40596369
PMCPMC12219911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.