Good conduct makes your face attractive: The effect of personality perception on facial attractiveness judgments (2024)

Ryosuke Niimi, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing^* and Mami Goto, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

The effect of personality perception on facial attractiveness

Prior knowledge about a target person influences rated facial attractiveness. Thiruchselvam et al. [40] presented (ostensible) peer attractiveness ratings before a target face was rated, and participants’ ratings of the target’s facial attractiveness were biased by the peer ratings. Situational context [53], attitude similarity [54] and in-group bias [38] are also known to influence facial attractiveness judgments. Favorable behaviors of a target person increase attractiveness. For example, using video stimuli, Nisbett and Wilson [55] demonstrated that the physical appearance of a target person behaving warmly and friendly was rated as more appealing than cold and distant targets.

Verbal descriptions of target personalities can also alter attractiveness judgments. Gross and Crofton [56] presented a photograph of a (fictional) female student attached with verbal descriptions of her personality. Male and female participants gave higher physical attractiveness ratings under the condition of favorable descriptions (e.g., generous, friendly) than under the condition of unfavorable descriptions (selfish, unfriendly). Hassin and Trope [57] (Study 6) adopted a similar procedure and found that descriptions of the kind personality of a male target increased his facial attractiveness rated by male and female participants. Such an effect seems to include both an increment effect by positive personality information and a decrement effect by negative personality information [58]. A comparable effect of personality information has been reported for female bodily attractiveness [59]. These findings suggest that there is a “what is good is beautiful” stereotype, the reverse of the physical attractiveness stereotype.

Paunonen [60] replicated and extended these results using a modified experimental procedure. Unlike in the previous studies [56, 57], personality descriptions were presented prior to the presentation of the target face image. This procedure eliminated the possibility that the facial image affected the interpretation of the descriptions. He also extended research of the “good is beautiful” effect by using personality traits not manipulated in the previous studies. Participants read a personality description that included manipulations of honesty, intelligence, and independence, followed by personality ratings (manipulation check). Then, a face image of a target person was shown, and the participants rated its physical characteristics, including attractiveness. The results showed an “honesty premium” effect, i.e., that target descriptions of high honesty increased the rated facial attractiveness compared to low honesty descriptions. Intelligence and independence did not yield such effect.

Later studies [61, 62] further confirmed that the presentation of favorable personality information did increase attractiveness by comparing the attractiveness ratings before and after the personality information presentation. This “what is good is beautiful” effect was found irrespective of the level of pre-rated facial attractiveness [56, 61]. Another intriguing aspect of these studies is the fact that personality information often altered the ratings of physical characteristics other than attractiveness (e.g., kind targets were rated as having shorter ears and rounder chins [57]), further implying that these effects reflect the stereotype that physical features are related to personality traits.

The present study

We conducted four experiments to replicate and extend the results of Paunonen’s study [60] (see Fig 1a). First, we aimed to replicate the “honesty premium” effect on facial attractiveness with a Japanese student sample (Experiment 1) and a larger sample including a wide range of ages (Experiment 2). Furthermore, we examined whether personality traits other than honesty (creativity and aggressiveness) would show similar effects (Experiment 3).

Open in a separate window

Fig 1

An overview of the experimental procedure.

Schematic illustrations of the procedures (a) and examples of the stimulus face images (b, c, d) are shown. Pre-rated facial attractiveness was manipulated in Experiment 1 (b). Experiments 2, 3, and 4 adopted the faces of medium attractiveness (c, d). Shirt attractiveness was varied in Experiment 2 to test whether it influenced the facial attractiveness ratings (c).

In addition, Experiment 4 examined the effects of mood (see Fig 1a). Paunonen concluded that the “honesty premium” effect was mediated by the general likability of a target person: rated likability was higher for the honest target and covaried with rated attractiveness. However, reading the honest personality description might have induced a positive mood in the participants, while the low honesty description might have induced a negative mood. It is known that positive/negative moods influence face perception [63], trustworthiness and friendliness of faces [64], and facial attractiveness [41, 42] (see also [65]). In these studies, moods were induced in ways that were irrelevant to the main tasks of the facial attractiveness rating (e.g., background music), so it seemed probable that the “honesty premium” effect of Paunonen [60] might be due to the effect of positive/negative mood induced by the high/low honesty descriptions (the mood hypothesis).

Method

Results and discussion

Physical ratings

The 20 physical characteristics of the target faces were analyzed using the same ANOVA. As can be seen in Fig 2a, rated facial attractiveness was significantly higher for targets with high pre-rated facial attractiveness (main effect of pre-rated attractiveness, F(1, 61) = 10.71, p = .002, η_p² = .149), confirming the successful manipulation. The high-honesty target faces were rated as more attractive (main effect of honesty, F(1, 61) = 8.84, p = .004, η_p² = .127). A post hoc power analysis yielded an acceptable statistical power of .856 (α = .05). The size of the attractiveness increment by high honesty seemed equal for both attractive and unattractive faces. The two-way interaction was not significant (F(1, 61) = 0.03, p = .852, η_p² = .001). A Bayes factor analysis showed that a linear model with the two fixed effects (honesty and pre-rated attractiveness) but without the interaction effect was favored against the full model by BF = 2.96, which was weak evidence. In addition, the faces of the high honesty targets were rated as kinder (p < .001), which was also reported by Paunonen [60]. Honesty did not alter the ratings of the other physical characteristics (see S1 Table). Pre-rated facial attractiveness significantly affected some physical characteristic ratings: attractive faces were rated as having larger and rounder eyes, thinner lips, and more angular shapes. These facial features may (partly) have determined the attractiveness ratings in the pilot study.

Open in a separate window

Fig 2

Results of facial attractiveness rating in Experiments 1 (a) and 2 (b).

Error bars indicate 95% CI of the mean. Each dot indicates one participant’s result. M = male, F = female.

Method

Results and discussion

Method

Results and discussion

Effect of target gender

As an ad-hoc analysis, we incorporated target gender into the ANOVA on rated attractiveness because aggression may be perceived differently for male and female aggressors (e.g., [73, 74]). As Fig 3 shows, the high aggressiveness personality description decreased the attractiveness of male faces but not of female faces. A 3-way ANOVA again yielded a marginal main effect of aggressiveness (p = .072) and a non-significant main effect of creativity (p = .628). The main effect of target gender was not significant (p = .935). Importantly, a significant interaction of target gender and aggressiveness was found (F(1, 109) = 4.81, p = .030, η_p² = .042) and the simple main effect of aggressiveness was significant for male faces (p = .005), but not for female faces (p = .793). However, the achieved power for this interaction was not high (.615, α = .05). No other interactions were significant (ps > .1). Although Fig 3 shows a pattern of aggressiveness×creativity interaction for female targets, it was not statistically significant. Future research with a substantial number of participants and target faces may be needed to clarify this issue.

Open in a separate window

Fig 3

Results of facial attractiveness rating in Experiment 3.

Error bars indicate 95% CI of the mean. Each dot indicates each participant’s result. M = male, F = female.

Method

Results

Physical ratings

Unexpectedly, the effect of honesty on attractiveness ratings was not replicated (Fig 4a). A 2-way ANOVA on attractiveness ratings yielded a non-significant main effect of honesty (F(1, 126) = 0.90, p = .344, η_p² = .007, BF₁₀ = .016) and a non-significant interaction with relevance (F(1, 126) = 0.11, p = .737, η_p² = .001). The main effect of relevance was also not significant (F(1, 126) = 0.29, p = .592, η_p² = .002). However, we found significant 2-way interactions for two items (mean–kind, stout neck–graceful neck; ps < .05) and a marginal interaction for one item (coarse hair–fine hair, p = .054; see S4 Table). Importantly, in all of these 3 items, the simple main effect of honesty was significant in the relevant condition but not in the irrelevant condition, suggesting that the honesty manipulation modified the physical ratings only for the relevant faces. No significant effect was found for any of the other items.

Open in a separate window

Fig 4

Results of Experiment 4.

Data of facial attractiveness ratings (a) and mood ratings (b, c) are shown. Error bars indicate 95% CI of the mean. Each dot indicates each participant’s result. PA = positive affect, NA = negative affect.

See Also

Predictors of facial attractiveness and health in humans12 ways to make yourself look and feel more attractive, according to science8 Features of a Beautiful FaceHow to be more attractive to women, according to science | Gentleman's Journal

Discussion

Since the “honesty premium” effect was not replicated, even in the relevant condition, we could not determine whether the effect was attributable to participants’ moods. The replication failure might be due to the use of course credit. The students who participated in exchange for course credit were assigned a short report on the experiment, and they might have had a critical perspective on the content of the experiment. Indeed, the effect size of honesty on the rated facial attractiveness in the relevant condition (high honesty condition minus low honesty condition) was smaller (0.24) for the participants who received course credit than for those who received a monetary reward (0.66).

Despite replication failure, the pattern of the results was generally inconsistent with the mood hypothesis. First, the participants’ mood ratings did not correlate with the facial attractiveness ratings. Second, a significant effect of honesty on the physical ratings of target faces was found only in the relevant condition. Nevertheless, we could not draw definite conclusions on the mood hypothesis because of the replication failure of the honesty premium effect. Further study is warranted.

The mechanism by which perceived personality modifies facial attractiveness

Paunonen [60] concluded that increased facial attractiveness was mediated by general likability, and our results were consistent with this view. The rated likability of a target person was increased by honest personality descriptions (Experiments 1 and 2). The mediation effect of likability was further confirmed by a mediation analysis on Experiment 2, which had a large sample. A significant direct effect from the rated honesty to the rated attractiveness (b = 0.26, p < .001) became non-significant (b = −0.04, p = .63) by controlling the rated likability as a mediator. The indirect effect mediated by the rated likability was statistically significant (Sobel’s test, z = 4.35, p < .001; see also S1 Fig). In Experiment 3, we found that the rated likability was significantly lower for the male target (3.9) than for the female target (5.4) in the high aggressiveness condition but there was no gender effect in the low aggressiveness condition (7.2 and 6.8, respectively), which was consistent with the interaction effect found for rated facial attractiveness in Experiment 3. The only exception was Experiment 4, in which honesty manipulation influenced likability but not facial attractiveness.

Experiment 4 tested an alternative account: whether a positive/negative mood elicited by the perception of an honest/dishonest personality would increase/decrease facial attractiveness. We did not find evidence that the participants’ mood correlated with the rated attractiveness. Although Experiment 4 failed to replicate the honesty effect on attractiveness ratings, it was noteworthy that the face of a high-honesty target was rated as kinder, having a more graceful neck and finer hair in the relevant condition, while there was no effect of honesty on physical ratings in the irrelevant condition. These results imply that a mediating effect of mood is relatively unlikely.

Limitations and implications for future research

In Experiment 4, we failed to replicate the effect of honesty on facial attractiveness. Experiment 4 also suggests that a high likability of the target does not necessarily increase facial attractiveness. The psychological mechanism behind the “good is beautiful” effect should be examined in further detail.

Another issue to be considered is the critical nature of personality traits that influence facial attractiveness judgments. We presumed that personality traits that could predict favorable or rewarding interpersonal behaviors, such as high honesty and low aggressiveness, would increase facial attractiveness. Perception of these traits would also increase likability, which is consistent with the mechanism proposed by Paunonen [60]. We may test this hypothesis through further experiments that manipulate participants’ expectations of rewarding interpersonal behaviors.

Finally, the ecological validity of our experiments is limited. The generality of the “good is beautiful” effect in more ecologically valid situations should be investigated in future research.

S1 Fig

Mediation analysis on Experiment 2.

(PDF)

S1 Table

Results of Experiment 1.

(PDF)

S2 Table

Results of Experiment 2.

(PDF)

S3 Table

Results of Experiment 3.

(PDF)

S4 Table

Results of Experiment 4.

(PDF)

S1 Appendix

Experiment 3 personality descriptions.

(PDF)

1. Rumsey N, Harcourt D. The psychology of appearance. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]

2. Dermer M, Thiel DL. When beauty may fail. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975; 31: 1168–1176. doi: 10.1037/h0077085 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972; 24: 285–290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol Bull. 1991; 110: 109–128. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Kalick SM, Zebrowitz LA, Langlois JH, Johnson RM. Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychol Sci. 1998; 9: 8–13. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Landy D, Sigall H. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1974; 29: 299–304. doi: 10.1037/h0036018 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000; 126: 390–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Ritts V, Patterson ML, Tubbs ME. Expectations, impressions, and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. Rev Educ Res. 1992; 62: 413–426. doi: 10.3102/00346543062004413 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Dickey-Bryant L, Lautenschlager GJ, Mendoza JL, Abrahams N. Facial attractiveness and its relation to occupational success. J Appl Psychol. 1986; 71: 16–19. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.1.16 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Feingold A.Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol Bull. 1992; 111: 304–341. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.304 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Penton-Voak IS, Pound N, Little AC, Perrett DI. Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Soc Cogn. 2006; 24: 607–640. doi: 10.1521/soco.2006.24.5.607 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Lundy DE, Tan J, Cunningham MR. Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships. Pers Relatsh. 1998; 5: 311–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00174.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottman L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1966; 4: 508–516. doi: 10.1037/h0021188 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Benson PL, Karabenick SA, Lerner RM. Pretty pleases: The effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1976; 12: 409–415. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(76)90073-1 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Farrelly D, Lazarus J, Roberts G. Altruists attract. Evol Psychol. 2007; 5: 313–329. doi: 10.1177/147470490700500205 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Chaiken S.Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979; 37: 1387–1397. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1387 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Hosoda M, Stone-Romero EF, Coats G. The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Pers Psychol. 2003; 56: 431–462. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Chiao JY, Bowman NE, Gill H. The political gender gap: Gender bias in facial inferences that predict voting behavior. Plos One. 2008; 3: e3666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003666 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Little AC, Roberts SC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios. Q J Exp Psychol. 2012; 65: 2018–2032. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.677048 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Verhulst B, Lodge M, Lavine H. The attractiveness halo: Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than others. J Nonverbal Behav. 2010; 34: 111–117. doi: 10.1007/s10919-009-0084-z [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Khan RF, Sutcliffe A. Attractive agents are more persuasive. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 2014; 30: 142–150. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2013.839904 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Yee N, Bailenson J. The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum Commun Res. 2004; 33: 271–290. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Sui J, Liu CH. Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16: 276–281. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.276 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Willis J, Todorov A. First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17: 592–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 50: 925–935. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.925 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Yeo RA. Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethol Sociobiol. 1994; 15: 73–85. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(94)90018-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (hom*o sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol. 1994; 108: 233–242. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci. 1990; 1: 115–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC. Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: Symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proc Biol Sci. 1995; 261(1360): 111–116. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0124 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994; 368: 239–242. doi: 10.1038/368239a0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Rhodes G.The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006; 57: 199–226. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999; 3: 452–460. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01403-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Jones BC, Holzleitner IJ, Shiramizu V. Does facial attractiveness really signal immunocompetence?Trends Cogn Sci. 2021; 25: 1018–1020. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.09.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Hönekopp J.Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32: 199–209. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Barelds DPH, Dijkstra P. Positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness and relationship quality. Pers Relatsh. 2009; 16: 263–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01222.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Bronstad PM, Russell R. Beauty is in the ‘we’ of the beholder: Greater agreement on facial attractiveness among close relations. Perception. 2007; 36: 1674–1681. doi: 10.1068/p5793 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Kniffin KM, Wilson DS. The effect of nonphysical traits on the perception of physical attractiveness: Three naturalistic studies. Evol Hum Behav. 2004; 25: 88–101. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00006-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Kniffin KM, Wansink B, Griskevicius V, Wilson DS. Beauty is in the in-group of the beholded: Intergroup differences in the perceived attractiveness of leaders. Leadersh Q. 2014; 25: 1143–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Peskin M, Newell FN. Familiarity breeds attraction: Effects of exposure on the attractiveness of typical and distinctive faces. Perception. 2004; 33: 147–157. doi: 10.1068/p5028 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Thiruchselvam R, Harper J, Homer AL. Beauty is in the belief of the beholder: Cognitive influences on the neural response to facial attractiveness. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016; 11: 1999–2008. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw115 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. May JL, Hamilton PA. Effects of musically evoked affect on women’s interpersonal attraction toward and perceptual judgments of physical attractiveness of men. Motiv Emot. 1980; 4: 217–228. doi: 10.1007/BF00995420 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Phelan N, Edlund JE. How disgust affects romantic attraction: The influence of moods on judgments of attractiveness. Evol Psychol Sci. 2016; 2: 16–23. doi: 10.1007/s40806-015-0031-7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Jones BT, Jones BC, Thomas AP, Piper J. Alcohol consumption increases attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex faces: A possible third route to risky sex. Addiction. 2003; 98: 1069–1075. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00426.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Attwood AS, Penton-Voak IS, Munafò MR. Effects of acute nicotine administration on ratings of attractiveness of facial cues. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009; 11: 44–48. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntn006 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Mueser KT, Grau BW, Sussman S, Rosen AJ. You’re only as pretty as you feel: Facial expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984; 46: 469–478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.469 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Ueda R, Kuraguchi K, Ashida H. Asymmetric effect of expression intensity on evaluations of facial attractiveness. Sage Open. 2016; 6: 215824401667756. doi: 10.1177/2158244016677569 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Saegusa C, Intoy J, Shimojo S. Visual attractiveness is leaky: The asymmetrical relationship between face and hair. Front Psychol. 2015; 6: 377. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00377 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Geiselman RE, Haight NA, Kimata LG. Context effects on the perceived physical attractiveness of faces. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1984; 20: 409–424. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(84)90035-0 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Osugi T, Kawahara J. Effects of bowing on perception of attractiveness. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015; 77: 1697–1714. doi: 10.3758/s13414-015-0879-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Demattè ML, Österbauer R, Spence C. Olfactory cues modulate facial attractiveness. Chem Senses. 2007; 32: 603–610. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjm030 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Elliot AJ, Niesta D. Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to women. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95: 1150–1164. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1150 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Lehmann GK, Elliot AJ, Calin-Jageman RJ. Meta-analysis of the effect of red on perceived attractiveness. Evol Psychol. 2018; 16: 1474704918802412. doi: 10.1177/1474704918802412 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Michniewicz KS, Vandello JA. The attractive underdog: When disadvantage bolsters attractiveness. J Soc Pers Relatsh. 2013; 30: 942–952. doi: 10.1177/0265407513477629 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Hassebrauck M.Perception of physical attractiveness influenced by similarity of attitudes. Percept Mot Skills. 1986; 63: 185–186. doi: 10.2466/pms.1986.63.1.185 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977; 35: 250–256. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Gross AE, Crofton C. What is good is beautiful. Sociometry. 1977; 40: 85–90. doi: 10.2307/3033549 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Hassin R, Trope Y. Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78: 837–852. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.837 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Wang X, Liu S, Han S, Gan Y, Li W, Xu Q, et al. Roles of social knowledge and sexual dimorphism in the evaluation of facial attractiveness. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2020; 88: 103963. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103963 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Swami V, Furnham A, Chamorro-Premuzic T, Akbar K, Gordon N, Harris T. More than just skin deep? Personality information influences men’s ratings of the attractiveness of women’s body sizes. J Soc Psychol. 2010; 150: 628–647. doi: 10.1080/00224540903365497 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Paunonen SV. You are honest, therefore I like you and find you attractive. J Res Pers. 2006; 40: 237–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.12.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Lewandowski GW Jr, Aron A, Gee J. Personality goes a long way: The malleability of opposite-sex physical attractiveness. Pers Relatsh. 2007; 14: 571–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00172.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Zhang Y, Kong F, Zhong Y, Kou H. Personality manipulations: Do they modulate facial attractiveness ratings?Pers Indiv Differ. 2014; 70: 80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.033 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Hills PJ, Lewis MB. Sad people avoid the eyes or happy people focus on the eyes? Mood induction affects facial feature discrimination. Br J Psychol. 2011; 102: 260–274. doi: 10.1348/000712610X519314 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Wyland CL, Forgas JP. Here’s looking at you kid: Mood effects on processing eye gaze as a heuristic cue. Soc Cogn. 2010; 28: 133–144. doi: 10.1521/soco.2010.28.1.133 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

65. Faust NT, Chatterjee A, Christopoulos GI. The effect of unrelated social exchanges on facial attractiveness judgments. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018; 79: 290–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.010 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Lennon SJ. Effects of clothing attractiveness on perceptions. Home Econ Res J. 1990; 18: 303–310. doi: 10.1177/1077727X9001800403 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. Niimi R, Yamada S. Effect of facial attractiveness on clothing attractiveness ratings by gender. Jpn J Psychol. 2020; 91: 94–104. [Google Scholar]

68. Henninger F, Shevchenko Y, Mertens UK, Kieslich PJ, Hilbig BE. lab.js: A free, open, online study builder. Behav Res Methods. 2022; 54: 556–573. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01283-5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007; 11: 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Rosenberg S, Nelson C, Vivekananthan PS. A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968; 9: 283–294. doi: 10.1037/h0026086 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

71. Walker M, Vetter T. Changing the personality of a face: Perceived Big Two and Big Five personality factors modeled in real photographs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016; 110: 609–624. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000064 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

72. Watkins CD. Creating beauty: Creativity compensates for low physical attractiveness when individuals assess the attractiveness of social and romantic partners. Roy Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4: 160955. doi: 10.1098/rsos.160955 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

73. Condry JC, Ross DE. Sex and aggression: The influence of gender label on the perception of aggression in children. Child Dev. 1985; 56: 225–233. doi: 10.2307/1130189 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

74. Harris MB, Knight-Bohnhoff K. Gender and aggression I: Perceptions of aggression. Sex Roles. 1996; 35: 1–25. doi: 10.1007/BF01548172 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

75. Asch SE. Forming impressions of personality. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1976; 41: 258–290. doi: 10.1037/h0055756 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-24839Good conduct makes your face attractive: The effect of personality perception on facial attractiveness judgmentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Niimi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both Reviewers raised several issues that need to be addressed (e.g., results from experiment four and various other statements). Thus, I invite the authors to review their manuscript strictly following the Reviewer's statements and then resubmit their revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office atgro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"RN received a grant from the KOSE Kosmetology Research Foundation. MG declares no competing interests."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. We note that Figure 1 includes images of a participants in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

Additional Editor Comments:

Both Reviewers raised several issues that need to be addressed (e.g., results from experiment four and various other statements).

Thus I invite the authors to review their manuscript strictly following the Reviewer's statements and then resubmit their revised manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1:Partly

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1:No

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:The manuscript was generally well written. I note a few confusing statements below. My greatest concern is how Experiment 4 produces inconclusive results but the authors interpret them to mean that positive or negative affect is not involved in the process. I believe the contribution would be more scientifically clear if Exp. 4 were removed or if the researchers conducted another experiment to clarify the results of Exp. 4. Below I give my comments in the order in which they appeared in the manuscript.

In the abstract, the authors write "more or less concerned." This is unclear. Writing, "Most people are at least somewhat concerned..." would be more clear.

In the abstract, the authors write "personal traits" when they mean "personality traits" (I believe).

In the abstract, the word "influence" is used, but it would be more accurate to write "correlated." This is because "influence" implies causality but most of the research is correlational (it is difficult to randomly assign folks to physical attractiveness levels).

Page 4, line 17 -- "yielded" is unclear; "gave" would be more accurate.

In Study 1, the authors explain the sample size by writing that it was determined following the previous study. This is not clear. Simply using the same sample size as past is not good practice. Power calculations are needed. This same comment applies to all experiments.

Page 7, line 5 -- "with the appearance of 20s" is unclear. Do you mean that the photo was shown for 20s? Just state it more directly, if so.

Page 8, line 27 -- "seemed equal" -- At several places in the results, the authors want to claim that they proved the null hypothesis. This is incorrect. Bayes or some other statistics are needed to do this. See Aczel, B., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A., Kovacs, M., Szaszi, B., Szecsi, P., ... & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2018). Quantifying support for the null hypothesis in psychology: An empirical investigation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 357-366.). To claim support for a null hypothesis, Bayes statistics need to be used (jamovi and JASP are free software that can easily be used to calculate Bayes factors).

Page 10, line 26-27: it is not clear why the sample size was too small to examine participant gender. This is also confusing because gender is tested in the middle of page 11.

Experiment 3 nicely reported a priori sample size determination methods.

In Exp. 3, target creativity and aggressiveness were crossed in the manipulation, so that a target could be high creative and high aggressive. Why was this done? I suspect it complicates the results and probably led to the weaker results and lack of an effect in female targets (the odd, almost interactive effect in female targets suggests this). This should be discussed.

Report standard deviations with each mean.

In Exp. 4, the manipulation of relevance is a good way to test the mood explanation. The measurement of mood is not. The mood ratings were made by participants after all other measures, rendering an insensitive measure even more insensitive. Also, the instructions given to participants for the mood ratings are not provided. They should be.

What happens when you test each mood word, as was done for the attractiveness ratings? The NA results are close to significant.

In the end, Exp. 4 failed to replicate the honesty effect and the experiment does not aid in interpreting the effects. There are many possible reasons for the failure to replicate.

In the discussion, mediation (via likability) is mentioned, but no formal statistical mediation is tested. Inclusion of these analyses would benefit the interpretation of the results.

Reviewer #2:Review of “Good Conduct Makes Your Face Attractive: The Effect of Personality Perception on Facial Attractiveness Judgments”

PONE-D-22-24839

Reviewed for PLOS ONE

(November, 2022)

Although I did not find this an exceptionally strong or groundbreaking set of studies, I also didn’t have a strong reason why the paper should be rejected from this journal. I mostly had suggestions for further clarification in various statements made in the manuscript, as listed below.

Comments (issues that need clarification):

p. 3; line 27: What do you mean by “how to deal with physical attractiveness stereotypes”?

p. 3; line 28: I would add, “Perceptions of..” or “Judgements of…” before Facial attractiveness.

p. 3; line 29: What is the meaning of “shared tastes”?

p. 3; line 30: I would change to “factors affecting perceptions of facial attractiveness…”

p. 4; line 2: Could you say more about the meaning of “hair,” such as length or color?

p. 4; line 3: You might change to “Red color was first shown to increase…”

p. 4; line 9: I would add “the target’s” before facial attractiveness.

p. 4; line 10: What is the meaning of a “unfairly disadvantaged target person (and “unfairly advantaged target” later in the sentence)? Also, I would add “a” and “an” before these phrases.

p. 4; line 12: Can you give an example in parentheses of “Favorable behaviors”?

As you discuss other factors that may influence perceptions of physical attractiveness, you might also refer to prior interactions with the person, as I believe there is research to show that if there is prior interaction (even very limited), the ratings are higher.

p. 5; line 4: You might not want to refer to a “difficult-to-interpret interaction effect” unless you are to explain it.

p. 5; line 10: Can you explain more about ear length and chin shape?

p. 5; line 16: For Experiment 2, you might also refer to the geographical location here, since you do for Experiment 1.

p. 5 line 23: I find it a little odd that shirt attractiveness was varied in an experiment, and would like to see more justification for doing so.

p. 6; I’m a little confused about the pre-registered study on the issue of mood, and wondered why more information about this study was not presented in the manuscript.

p. 7; line 5: You might refer to it as a pilot study rather than a preliminary survey.

p. 7; line 8: You might add “in the pilot study” after “Personality descriptions were not given.”

p. 8; top: When you refer to the 20 items from Paunonen including attractiveness, you might give a couple of examples here in text.

p. 8; lines 4-6: I found this sentence (that begins, “Of interest was…”) to be confusing.

p. 8; line 11: How was it possible in an online survey that two adjacent points could be marked? Or was it a paper survey?

p. 8; bottom: Aren’t the findings related to the effect of pre-rated facial attractiveness on facial attractiveness just a manipulation check?

p. 12: I found it a little odd that you added creativity this study with the anticipation of not finding an effect. Why not include a variable for which you expected a significant effect?

p. 15; line 13 and line 17: I am confused about the meaning of relevant/irrelevant, and think more information needs to be presented.

p. 16; line 4: I am confused by this information. You state that you prepared 32 forms, and each participant was randomly assigned to one of them. But you had only 130 participants, and thus, how could you make valid group comparisons? If this truly is the case, you may need to consider adding more participants or even eliminating this study. Could this also be why the honesty effect was not replicated?

Experiment 4: If mood really was of interest, why wasn’t mood a manipulated independent variable?

General Discussion: It would seem that you should discuss honesty as a “central trait” and the social psych research on how central traits can change the interpretation of other information presented simultaneously.

Very minor editing suggestions:

p. 3; line 11: I would add “a” before stereotype.

p. 9; line 17: I would add “a” before “crowdsourcing platform”

p. 11; line 28: Add “the” before “target person”

p. 14; line 29: Add “the” before perceived personality” and add “a” before target person.

p. 15; line 4: Add “the” before participants.

.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1:No

Reviewer #2:No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS atgro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Dec 2022

(Please see Response To Reviewers file)

26 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-24839R1Good conduct makes your face attractive: The effect of personality perception on facial attractiveness judgmentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Niimi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office atgro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I see that the authors addressed all the suggested reasonable changes in the first step of revision. I am sorry that only one revision was available in the second step. However, the second Reviewer was satisfied with the addressed changes, although he also identified several minor issues that should be clarified in the manuscript.

Given that the time is going on and assuming that the suggested changes are quickly addressed, I invite the author to make all the proposed minor changes and submit them directly to my attention for acceptance.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2:(No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2:Re-review of “Good Conduct Makes your Face Attractive: The Effect of Personality Perception on Facial Attractiveness Judgments”

Reviewed for PLOS ONE

The authors have revised the manuscript in a satisfactory way and also written a reasonable cover letter indicating how they have responded to reviewer suggestions from the first round of review. Below, I identify several issues that could still use clarification in the manuscript.

Abstract; line 3: You state that human facial attractiveness is related to physical features, such as averageness and symmetry. I think some readers will have no idea of what you mean by averageness, as it can have another meaning too in regard to physical attractiveness (just being an average looking person). I would suggest you provide a different example, such as “clear complexion.”

Abstract; line 5: When you write, “Here, we examined the effect…” add “judgments of attractiveness”.

Abstract; line 11: The phrase, “whereas aggressive personality of a male target might decrease the rated facial attractiveness” should be replaced with what finding you actually obtained.

p. 3; line 12: I found it confusing (and a little annoying actually) when you have a sentence such as “It is noteworthy that the validity of such a stereotype has been questioned (but see…). First, you don’t say how the validity has been questioned, and then you don’t give us an idea of what the “but see” would say. So, both parts of the sentence seem misleading, and particularly in combination.

p. 3; line 20; ditto the two “but see”.

p. 3; line 24 and 25: Judgments of attractiveness are not the same as “being attracted”, but this sentence implies they are the same.

p. 3; line 25: You state that attractiveness is not an objective reality and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, earlier in the same page (line 17), you had indicated that visual perception of facial attractiveness is consistent among observers.

p. 3; line 28: Can you provide a citation at the end of this sentence saying that appearance-related prejudice and stereotypes may undermine psychological wellbeing?

p. 3; line 30: I’m still not sure what you mean by “private tastes”. I think you could choose a different wording.

p. 4; line 13: I think you give enough other examples that it would be fine to delete the example of the study referring to an “unfairly disadvantaged job applicant” and an “unfairly advantaged applicant”. I think that is just a confusing example.

p. 5; line 5: Maybe change to: a personality description that included the manipulations of honesty, intelligence, and independence.

p. 7; top; Explain more where the participants were obtained from and how they were recruited.

p. 7: Because you had both male and female targets (and described that at the top of p. 7), it is confusing when you don’t refer to the gender of the target at the bottom of the page (that it is just ignored).

p. 8; line 24: You state that “Pre-rated facial attractiveness had almost no effect…” That sentence seems too ambiguous. Either there are effects or there are none.

p. 9; Summary: In this brief Summary, summarize again the findings that lead to the conclusion that there was an “honesty premium” effect.

p. 9; bottom: I’m still confused why clothing was manipulated rather than facial attractiveness.

p. 10; line 19: Provide another statement about what the two attractiveness t-shirts looked like and what the unattractive t-shirts looked like.

p. 12; top: Were there any significant interactions?

p. 12; line 20: You might consider adding this phrase in parentheses after “attractiveness ratings because aggressiveness (or its opposite)…

p. 13; Participants: Where did the participants come from and how were they recruited?

p. 16: Ditto the question for Experiment 4.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2:No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS atgro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Jan 2023

Please see the attached file "ResponseToReviewers.docx".

1 Feb 2023

Good conduct makes your face attractive: The effect of personality perception on facial attractiveness judgments

PONE-D-22-24839R2

Dear Dr. Niimi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.

Kind regards,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have addressed all the minor comments of the Reviewer#2. Thus I think can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

3 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-24839R2

Good conduct makes your face attractive: The effect of personality perception on facial attractiveness judgments

Dear Dr. Niimi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE