Skip to main content

Beauty Goes Down to the Core: Attractiveness Biases Moral Character Attributions


Physical attractiveness is a heuristic that is often used as an indicator of desirable traits. In two studies (N = 1254), we tested whether facial attractiveness leads to a selective bias in attributing moral character—which is paramount in person perception—over non-moral traits. We argue that because people are motivated to assess socially important traits quickly, these may be the traits that are most strongly biased by physical attractiveness. In Study 1, we found that people attributed more moral traits to attractive than unattractive people, an effect that was stronger than the tendency to attribute positive non-moral traits to attractive (vs. unattractive) people. In Study 2, we conceptually replicated the findings while matching traits on perceived warmth. The findings suggest that the Beauty-is-Good stereotype particularly skews in favor of the attribution of moral traits. As such, physical attractiveness biases the perceptions of others even more fundamentally than previously understood.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Availability of Data and Material

The data and materials of all studies are available at We confirm that all measures, conditions, data exclusions and methods of determining sample sizes were reported.

Code Availability

Not applicable.


  1. 1.

    In all studies, sample size was determined before any data analysis.

  2. 2.

    For all studies, we reported all measures, manipulations and exclusions.

  3. 3.

    Attractive faces had been rated 4.90 and unattractive faces had been rated 1.77 on 7-point scales from 1 = not at all attractive to 7 = extremely attractive.

  4. 4.

    Additional analyses revealed that excluding participants had no substantive impact on the results.

  5. 5.

    In the attractiveness condition, two different attractive faces were presented, and in the unattractiveness condition, one of the presented faces was attractive. Excluding ratings of Asian female faces had no substantive impact on the results.

  6. 6.

    The unstandardized coefficients are presented in Table S1.

  7. 7.

    Additional analyses revealed that excluding participants had no substantive impact on the results.

  8. 8.

    The norming data (Ma et al., 2015a) assessed attractiveness on a scale ranging from not at all attractive to extremely attractive, making it difficult to determine the degree of unattractiveness of the unattractive faces.


  1. Abele, A. E., Hauke, N., Peters, K., Louvet, E., Szymkow, A., & Duan, Y. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness—Communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1810.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna, Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 201–271). Academic Press. doi:

  3. Ambady, N. (2010). The perils of pondering: Intuition and thin slice judgments. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K., Suppes, A., & Bolger, N. (2010). Not so fast: The (not-quite-complete) dissociation between accuracy and confidence in thin-slice impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 264–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bocian, K., Baryla, W., Kulesza, W. M., Schnall, S., & Wojciszke, B. (2018). The mere liking effect: Attitudinal influences on attributions of moral character. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., & Goodwin, G. (in press). The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64.

  10. Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(5), 1054–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui, X., Cheng, Q., Lin, W., Lin, J., & Mo, L. (2019). Different influences of facial attractiveness on judgments of moral beauty and moral goodness. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Efran, M. G., & Patterson, E. W. J. (1974). Voters vote beautiful: The effect of physical appearance on a national election. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 6(4), 352–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 304–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Forgas, J. P., & Laham, S. M. (2016). Halo effects. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in judgement, thinking and memory (pp. 276–290). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heinzelmann, N. C., Weber, S. C., & Tobler, P. N. (2020). Aesthetics and morality judgments share cortical neuroarchitecture. Cortex, 129, 484–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Henderson, G. E. (2015). Ugliness: A cultural history. Reaktion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 431–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobson, A. S., Trivers, R., & Palestis, B. G. (2020). Number of friends and self-perception among Jamaican children: The role of attractiveness and fluctuating asymmetry. Journal of Biosocial Science, 52(2), 184–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Eds.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1790).

  28. Klebl, C., Luo, Y. & Bastian, B. (in press). Beyond aesthetic judgment: Beauty increases moral standing through perceptions of purity perceptions of purity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

  29. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015a). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ma, F., Xu, F., & Luo, X. (2015b). Children’s and adults’ judgments of facial trustworthiness: The relationship to facial attractiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 121(1), 179–198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rzymski, C., Tresoldi, T., Greenhill, S. J., Wu, M. S., Schweikhard, N. E., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Chang, S. (2020). The Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications, reproducible analysis of cross-linguistic polysemies. Scientific Data, 7(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shahani-Denning, C., Dudhat, P., Tevet, R., & Andreoli, N. (2010). Effect of physical attractiveness on selection decisions in India and the United States. International Journal of Management, 27(1), 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2010). Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: Implications for the Beauty-is-Good stereotype. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 138–148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Walker, L. J., & Hennig, K. H. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: Just, brave, and caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 629–647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wheeler, L., & Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivistic cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 795–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wilson, N. (2013). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. (2006). Judging a book by its cover: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Franklin, R. G., Jr. (2014). The attractiveness halo effect and the babyface stereotype in older and younger adults: Similarities, own-age accentuation, and older adult positivity effects. Experimental Aging Research, 40(3), 375–393.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information




CK developed the study concept. All authors contributed to the study design. Data collection were performed by CK with the help from YL. CK performed the data analysis and interpretation under the supervision of BB. CK drafted the manuscript, and JR, KG, YL, and BB provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Klebl.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This research has been approved by the Human Ethics Research Committee (HREC 1955975.1) at the University of Melbourne and conforms with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 51 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klebl, C., Rhee, J.J., Greenaway, K.H. et al. Beauty Goes Down to the Core: Attractiveness Biases Moral Character Attributions. J Nonverbal Behav (2021).

Download citation


  • Attractiveness
  • Moral character
  • Beauty-is-good stereotype
  • Person perception