Researchers have tended to focus on mind perception as integral to judgments of moral standing, yet a smaller body of evidence suggests that beauty may also be an important factor (for some people and animals). Across six studies (N = 1,662), we investigated whether beauty increases moral standing attributions to a wide range of targets, including non-sentient entities, and explored the psychological mechanism through which beauty assigns moral standing to targets. We found that people attribute greater moral standing to beautiful (vs. ugly) animals (Study 1 and Study 5a, preregistered) and humans (Study 2). This effect also extended to non-sentient targets, that is, people perceive beautiful (vs. ugly) landscapes (Study 3) and buildings (Study 4 and Study 5b, preregistered) as possessing greater moral standing. Across all studies, perceptions of purity mediated the effect of beauty on moral standing, suggesting that beauty increases the moral standing individuals place on targets through evoking moral intuitions of purity.
BastianB.LahamS. M.WilsonS.HaslamN.KovalP. (2011). Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 469–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466610X521383
3.
DuttonD. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, & human evolution. Oxford University Press.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505–520. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0013748
GunnthorsdottirA. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355
10.
HaidtJ. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In KeyesC. L. M.HaidtJ. (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). American Psychological Association.
11.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
HalberstadtJ.RhodesG. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11(4), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.00257
14.
KleblC.GreenawayK. H.RheeJ. J.BastianB. (2021). Ugliness judgments alert us to cues of pathogen presence. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12, 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1948550620931655
15.
KleblC.LuoY.TanN. P. -J.Ping ErnJ. T.BastianB. (2021). Beauty of the Beast: Beauty as an important dimension in the moral standing of animals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101624
16.
LandováE.PolákováP.RádlováS.JanovcováM.BobekM.FryntaD. (2018). Beauty ranking of mammalian species kept in the Prague Zoo: Does beauty of animals increase the respondents’ willingness to protect them?The Science of Nature, 105(11–12), 69.
17.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.RubensteinA. J.LarsonA.HallamM.SmootM. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135. https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
20.
MarešováJ.FryntaD. (2008). Noah’s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.012
21.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
ParkJ. H.FaulknerJ.SchallerM. (2003). Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910408854
24.
ParkJ. H.Van LeeuwenF.ChochorelouY. (2013). Disease-avoidance processes and stigmatization: Cues of substandard health arouse heightened discomfort with physical contact. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(2), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.721812
25.
PiazzaJ.LandyJ. F.GoodwinG. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131(1), 108–124. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013
26.
PossidónioC.GraçaJ.PiazzaJ.PradaM. (2019). Animal images database: Validation of 120 images for human-animal studies. Animals, 9(8), 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080475
RottmanJ.KelemenD.YoungL. (2015). Hindering harm and preserving purity: How can moral psychology save the planet?Philosophy Compass, 10(2), 134–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12195
29.
RozinP.RubyM. B. (2020). Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite: Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating. Emotion, 20(5), 854–865. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/emo0000587
RuttanR. L.NordgrenL. F. (2021). Instrumental use erodes sacred values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000343
32.
RyanS.OatenM.StevensonR. J.CaseT. I. (2012). Facial disfigurement is treated like an infectious disease. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 33(6), 639–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.04.001
33.
SchoemannA. M.BoultonA. J.ShortS. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068
34.
SmithR. J.VeríssimoD.IsaacN. J.JonesK. E. (2012). Identifying Cinderella species: Uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters, 5(3), 205–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00229.x
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.
TetlockP. E.KristelO. V.ElsonS. B.GreenM. C.LernerJ. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.853
40.
ThrashT. M.ElliotA. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.871
41.
TisdellC.NanthaH. S.WilsonC. (2007). Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?Ecological Economics, 60(3), 627–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.007
ZebrowitzL. A.RhodesG. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 167–185.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
