“Appearance” or “Identity”: Women’s Dual Considerations in Trust Decisions with Men

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2026.04.015

Abstract

Abstract:

This study employed a 2(facial attractiveness: attractive, unattractive)×3(group identity: in-group, out-group, unknown-group) within-subjects design to investigate how male facial attractiveness and group identity influence females’ trust decisions. Experiment 1 examined the truster’s decision-making. When feedback was unknown, trusters showed a higher investment rate to attractive trustees. Under the unattractive condition, trusters invested more in in-group trustees. When receiving gain feedback, trusters reinvested a larger amount to attractive trustees. The trend of reinvestment amounts across different groups was: in-group > unknown group > out-group. Experiment 2 examined the trustee’s decision-making. Trustees expected that attractive trusters would have a higher willingness to invest. However, neither the truster’s facial attractiveness nor group identity had a significant effect on reciprocation rate. In summary, the “beauty premium” plays a dominant role in trust decisions, outweighing the “in-group favoritism” effect. This decision-making pattern exhibits asymmetry between the roles of truster and trustee.

Key words: facial attractiveness, decision-making, in-group favoritism, trust

摘要：

本研究采用2(面孔吸引力：高、低)×3(群体身份：内、外、未知)被试内设计，探究男性面孔吸引力和群体身份如何影响女性信任决策。实验1考察信托人决策，反馈未知时，信托人对高面孔吸引力受托人投资比率更高。低面孔吸引力条件下，信托人对内群体受托人投资更高。有收益反馈时，信托人对高面孔吸引力受托人的再投资金额更高，对不同群体的再投资金额趋势依次为内群体、未知群体、外群体。实验2考察受托人决策，受托人预期高面孔吸引力信托人的投资意愿更高，但信托人的面孔吸引力及群体身份对回报比率均无显著影响。综上，信任决策中“美貌溢价”具有主导作用，超越了“内群体偏爱”，这种决策模式在信托人和受托人角色中表现出不对称性。

关键词: 面孔吸引力, 决策, 内群体偏爱, 信任

CLC Number:

B849

Junchen SHANG, Kaiyin ZHONG, Fang HAO. “Appearance” or “Identity”: Women’s Dual Considerations in Trust Decisions with Men[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2026, 24(4): 551-558.

尚俊辰, 钟凯音, 郝芳. “外貌”还是“身份”：女性对男性信任决策的双重考量[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2026, 24(4): 551-558.

Figures/Tables 6

References 0

	车敬上, 孙海龙, 肖晨洁, 李爱梅. 为什么信息超载损害决策? 基于有限认知资源的解释. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27 (10): 1758- 1768.
	付超, 张振, 何金洲, 黄四林, 仇剑崟, 王益文. 普遍信任博弈决策的动态过程——来自脑电时频分析的证据. 心理学报, 2018, 50 (3): 317- 326. DOI
	黄亮, 李森, 陈永辉, 黄文欣, 张秀松, 陈顺森. 意图信息透明与互惠意图促进人际信任: 来自噪音信任博弈的证据. 心理科学, 2024, 47 (2): 402- 410.
	寇慧, 苏艳华, 张妍, 孔繁昌, 胡媛艳, 王洋, 陈红. 面孔吸引力的影响因素: 观察者假设. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21 (12): 2144- 2153.
	刘璐, 肖雪, 刘丽莎, 徐良苑, 张旭然, 李燕芳. 儿童在不同卷入情境下基于资源价值的分配行为特点: 内群体偏爱的作用. 心理学报, 2019, 51 (5): 584- 597. DOI
	渠亚明, 冯利, 杜冰, 王鑫文. 群体身份对过度的第三方惩罚的影响及其机制. 心理技术与应用, 2025, 13 (2): 82- 91. DOI
	尚俊辰, 张懿倬, 陈文锋, 傅小兰. 面孔吸引力对经济决策的影响机制. 科学通报, 2024, 69 (11): 1447- 1460.
	Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, 115 (3): 715- 753.
	Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 1995, 10 (1): 122- 142.
	Brustkern, J., Heinrichs, M., Walker, M., & Schiller, B. Facial threat affects trust more strongly than facial attractiveness in women than it does in men. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11 (1): 22475. DOI
	Burnham, T., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2000, 43 (1): 57- 73. DOI
	Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire (junior and adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
	Gao, W., Cao, B., Shan, S. G., Chen, X. L., Zhou, D. L., Zhang, X. H., & Zhao, D. B. (2008). The CAS-PEAL large-scale Chinese face database and baseline evaluations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 38(1), 149–161.
	Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad. Social Cognition, 2006, 24 (2): 187- 206. DOI
	Ioannou, C. A., Qi, S., & Rustichini, A. Group payoffs as public signals. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2015, 48, 89- 105. DOI
	Jaeger, B., Oud, B., Williams, T., Krumhuber, E. G., Fehr, E., & Engelmann, J. B. Can people detect the trustworthiness of strangers based on their facial appearance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2022, 43 (4): 296- 303. DOI
	Krämer, W. Kahneman, D. (2011): Thinking, fast and slow. Statistical Papers, 2014, 55 (3): 915.
	Li, H. Y., Cai, D. T., Li, G., & Hu, M. M. The “beauty premium” phenomenon: Appearance discrimination in the P2P market. Journal of Travel Research, 2025, 64 (4): 783- 811. DOI
	Liang, L. Y., Lin, L. J., Jin, L. W., Xie, D. R., & Li, M. R. (2018). SCUT-FBP5500: A diverse benchmark dataset for multi-paradigm facial beauty prediction. Paper presented at the 24th International Conference on Pattern Pecognition (ICPR), Beijing.
	Loustau, T., Glassman, J., Martin, J. W., Young, L., & McAuliffe, K. The impact of group membership on punishment versus partner rejection. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14 (1): 22238. DOI
	Ma, Q. G., Cheng, L., Qiu, W. W., & Pei, G. X. Role effect on beauty premium: Female as proposer may gain more fairness. PsyCh Journal, 2022, 11 (5): 691- 706. DOI
	Ni, J., Yang, J. X., & Ma, Y. N. Social bonding in groups of humans selectively increases inter-status information exchange and prefrontal neural synchronization. PLoS Biology, 2024, 22 (3): e3002545. DOI
	Pandey, G., & Zayas, V. What is a face worth? Facial attractiveness biases experience-based monetary decision-making. British Journal of Psychology, 2021, 112 (4): 934- 963. DOI
	Peng, L. C., Wang, X., & Ying, S. S. The heterogeneity of beauty premium in China: Evidence from CFPS. Economic Modelling, 2020, 90, 386- 396. DOI
	Rostovtseva, V. V., Puurtinen, M., Méndez Salinas, E., Cox, R. F. A., Groothuis, A. G. G., Butovskaya, M. L., & Weissing, F. J. Unravelling the many facets of human cooperation in an experimental study. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13 (1): 19573. DOI
	Shang, J. C., & Zhang, Y. Z. Influence of male’s facial attractiveness, vocal attractiveness and social interest on female’s decisions of fairness. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14 (1): 16778. DOI
	Shang, J. C., & Zhang, Y. Z. Beauty is not always a perk: The role of attractiveness and social interest in trust decisions. Behavioral Sciences, 2025, 15 (2): 175. DOI
	Shang, J. C., & Zhong, K. Y. Facial attractiveness and group identity influence decision-making. PsyCh Journal, 2025, 14 (3): 457- 459. DOI
	Shen, J., Han, S. F., Shen, X. Y., White, K. R. G., Guo, Z. B., Xu, Q., … Yang, Y. P. Group membership moderates the process of making trust judgments based on facial cues. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2022, 162 (5): 595- 606. DOI
	Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 1979, 33, 94- 109. DOI
	Tang, Y. J., & Gong, Z. Trust game, survey trust, are they correlated? Evidence from China. Current Psychology, 2024, 43 (3): 2253- 2263. DOI
	Vermue, M., Meleady, R., & Seger, C. R. Member-to-member generalisation in trust behaviour: How do prior experiences inform prosocial behaviour towards novel ingroup and outgroup members. Current Psychology, 2019, 38 (4): 1003- 1020. DOI
	Wang, X. G., & Tang, X. O. Face photo-sketch synthesis and recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2009, 31 (11): 1955- 1967. DOI
	Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. Judging a book by its cover: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly, 2006, 59 (2): 189- 202. DOI
	Woitzel, J., Ingendahl, M., & Alves, H. Intergroup bias in perceived trustworthiness among few or many minimal groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2024, 115, 104668. DOI
	Wu, Q., Tan, C., Wang, B., & Zhou, P. Behavioral immune system and ingroup derogation: The effects of infectious diseases on ingroup derogation attitudes. PLoS One, 2015, 10 (3): e0122794. DOI

	内群体	外群体	未知群体
高吸引力	5.79±0.58	5.82±0.50	5.81±0.47
低吸引力	3.07±0.39	2.91±0.35	3.04±0.36

	内群体	外群体	未知群体
高吸引力	5.79±0.58	5.82±0.50	5.81±0.47
低吸引力	3.07±0.39	2.91±0.35	3.04±0.36

	初投资比率	再投资比率(收益反馈)	再投资比率(损失反馈)	再投资金额(收益反馈)	再投资金额(损失反馈)
高面孔吸引力−内群体	0.88±0.20	0.97±0.11	0.12±0.25	1.04±0.20	0.63±0.27
高面孔吸引力−外群体	0.84±0.22	0.97±0.10	0.10±0.23	0.97±0.23	0.60±0.17
高面孔吸引力−未知群体	0.86±0.17	0.98±0.07	0.11±0.20	0.99±0.21	0.53±0.14
低面孔吸引力−内群体	0.76±0.25	0.97±0.08	0.13±0.26	0.98±0.25	0.61±0.35
低面孔吸引力−外群体	0.64±0.32	0.98±0.06	0.08±0.19	0.87±0.32	0.55±0.17
低面孔吸引力−未知群体	0.66±0.29	0.97±0.11	0.08±0.21	0.94±0.27	0.60±0.23

	初投资比率	再投资比率(收益反馈)	再投资比率(损失反馈)	再投资金额(收益反馈)	再投资金额(损失反馈)
高面孔吸引力−内群体	0.88±0.20	0.97±0.11	0.12±0.25	1.04±0.20	0.63±0.27
高面孔吸引力−外群体	0.84±0.22	0.97±0.10	0.10±0.23	0.97±0.23	0.60±0.17
高面孔吸引力−未知群体	0.86±0.17	0.98±0.07	0.11±0.20	0.99±0.21	0.53±0.14
低面孔吸引力−内群体	0.76±0.25	0.97±0.08	0.13±0.26	0.98±0.25	0.61±0.35
低面孔吸引力−外群体	0.64±0.32	0.98±0.06	0.08±0.19	0.87±0.32	0.55±0.17
低面孔吸引力−未知群体	0.66±0.29	0.97±0.11	0.08±0.21	0.94±0.27	0.60±0.23

	预测投资比率	回报比率 (预测正确)	回报比率 (预测错误)
高面孔吸引力−内群体	0.94±0.10	0.69±0.38	0.68±0.35
高面孔吸引力−外群体	0.92±0.11	0.73±0.36	0.63±0.35
高面孔吸引力−未知群体	0.91±0.11	0.74±0.37	0.66±0.32
低面孔吸引力−内群体	0.83±0.18	0.72±0.39	0.70±0.32
低面孔吸引力−外群体	0.82±0.16	0.72±0.36	0.63±0.34
低面孔吸引力−未知群体	0.82±0.15	0.70±0.37	0.69±0.35