I
I

IIIHIHIN

NH

ADULT RESPONSES TO INFANT CUTENESS

p4
_s._s

 

_.{
I
.m\]_.\

Thesis for Hm Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Katherine Ann Hildebrandt
I976

 

 

 

L

II

III

II

III

III

I

\

\IIIIIII

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

ADULT RESPONSES TO INFANT CUTENESS

By
Katherine Ann Hildebrandt

Lorenz first hypothesized that physical and behavioral characteristics
of both human and nonhuman infants act as innate releasers of caregiver
approach. Several studies are reviewed which indicate that adults
do in fact prefer, and show a stronger positive emotional response
to, pictures and drawings of babies as compared to pictures and drawings
of adults. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the
effects of different configurations of infant facial features, categorized
according to perceived cuteness, on college students' behavior.

Forty college students from introductory psychology classes
(20 males and 20 females) were tested individually. Half of the
participants observed six photographs of 4-month—old infants and
half observed six photographs of 8-month-old infants.

Pairs of photographs were presented via slides. During Parts l
and 3 or the experiment, each pair consisted of two copies of the same
infant. In this way, each of the six photographs was presented individually
until the participant pressed a button to remove the photographs from
the screen. During these presentations, recordings were made of looking
time (the amount of time the participant looked at each pair before

removing them from the screen), smiling (measured electromyographically

<3

2:
,)

Katherine Ann Hildebrandt
from the zygomaticus muscle of the cheek), and skin conductance
responses (measured from the palm of the left hand).

During Part 2 of the experiment, the six photographs the participant
had just seen during Part 1 were presented in all possible paired
combinations. Paired looking time was defined as the average percent
of time spent looking at each of the six photographs during this
part of the experiment.

After completion of all three parts of the experiment, participants
were asked to rank prints of the six photographs previously seen
in their order of perceived cuteness.

A 2 x 2 x 2 (sex of participant x age of infant x cuteness
ranking of photograph) multivariate analysis of variance was performed
on the four dependent variables: looking time, smiling, SC, and
paired looking time. Two levels of cuteness were established by
considering the average value of each dependent measure for the
two cutest photographs and the average value for the two least cute
photographs. The only significant effect was that of cuteness.

Post hoc univariate analyses revealed significant effects of cuteness
for looking time and paired looking time. Photographs ranked cuter
were looked at longer in all three segments of the experiment.

Looking time, smiling, and SC were further analyzed for the
effects of repeated presentations (Parts 1 and 3). Looking time
significantly declined from Part l to Part 2, and the decline was
larger for the least cute photographs than for the most cute photographs.
Smiling did not change from Part l to Part 3. The number of SCRs
occurring declined from l28 during Part l to 57 during Part 3 (out

of a total of 240 slide presentations during each part).

Katherine Ann Hildebrandt
The observation that participants looked longer at infant

photographs which they ranked higher in cuteness suggests that adults
may vary their looking at real infants as a function of perceived
cuteness. Of course, many cues other than facial features may contribute
to the perceived cuteness of a real infant. However, if looking
behavior is affected by cuteness, in whatever way cuteness is defined
by the individual, it is not unreasonable to expect that this variation
in adult behavior may influence the quality of adult—infant interaction.
The results of the present study suggest that the infant's physical
appearance and the adult‘s perception of cuteness be included in future
studies of adult-infant interaction, particularly with respect to the

organization of mutual visual regard.

ADULT RESPONSES TO INFANT CUTENESS

By
Katherine Ann Hildebrandt

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1976

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Hi Fitzgerald for his advice and assistance;
Ellen Strommen, Gary Olson, and Lauren Harris for their interest;
Tom Hildebrandt for his support and patience; and my assistants for

their competent help.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................. _...... ........ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................. ....... ................. ..... vi
INTRODUCTION ................................. ................ 1

Adults' responses to pictures of babies
The importance of infant physical appearance to
social relations

METHOD .............................................. . ........ 6

Participants

Stimuli

Apparatus

Dependent variables

Procedure

Data Scoring
RESULTS ...................................................... 14
DISCUSSION ................................................... 2l
APPENDIX A - SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES ............................ 26
APPENDIX B - PARTICIPANT FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS .............. 30
APPENDIX C - PILOT STUDY ..................................... 34
REFERENCES ................................................... 46

iii

Table

Al.
A2.

A3.

A4.

C1.
C2.

C3.

C4.
C5.

C6.

C7.

C8.

LIST OF TABLES

Number of participants assigned to each experimental

condition ..........................................

Order of presentation of stimuli ............ . ......

Average rankings of each infant photograph by male
and female participants ................... .........

Multivariate tests of the effects of sex of
participant, age of infant in photographs, and
cuteness rankings of photographs on looking

time, smiling, SCR, and paired looking time ....... ,.

Multivariate tests of the effects of sex of
participant, age of infant in photograph,

cuteness rankings of photographs, and time

seen (Part 1 or Part 3) on looking time and

smiling ............................................

Number of participants assigned to each conditiOn ..

Proportion of participants choosing each photograph
as cuter than each other photograph of 4-month—olds

Proportion of participants choosing each photograph
as cuter than each other photograph of 8-month—olds

Rank order of photographs .. ........................

Measurements and ratings of facial features in
photographs of 4-month-old infants .................

Measurements and ratings of facial features in
photographs of 8-month—old infants .................

Correlations between cuteness rankings and
faCia] features 00000000000000 , 0.0.0.1000... 00000000000

Features of the photographs mentioned as being
most important when rating cuteness ................

iv

Page

...... 12
...... 26

...... 27

QO‘QQQ 28

...... 29
...... 37

...... 39

...... 40

...... 4T

...... 42

...... 42

Table Page

C9. Cuteness ratings (expressed as proportions)
of photographs of 4—month-old infants chosen
for use in subsequent study ................ .............. 43

ClO. Cuteness ratings (expressed as proportions)
of photographs of 8—month-old infants chosen
for use in subsequent study‘ ....................... . ..... . 44

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I. Time spent looking at infant photographs at
each cuteness rank ......... . ............. . ................ l6

2. Percent increase in smiling during presentation
of infant photographs at each cuteness rank ............... l6

3. Magnitude of SCRs to infant photographs at
each cuteness rank ........................................ l7

4. Average percent of paired looking time spent
looking at infant photographs at each cuteness
rank ...................................................... l7

5. Interaction between cuteness ranking and time
seen for looking time ..................................... l9

vi

INTRODUCTION

Lorenz (l943; l950) first hypothesized that physical and behavioral
characteristics of both human and nonhuman infants act as sign stimuli
(or innate releasing mechanisms) that elicit caregiver approach and
physical contact. The term commonly used to refer to these infant
characteristics, babyishness, is defined by a number of component
cues including a relatively small size, a plump body with short limbs
and large head, soft skin, certain behaviors such as awkward movements
and crying and characteristic facial features (Hess, l970). Prominant
facial features include a short face in relation to a high and protruding
forehead, large eyes placed in the middle of the face, rounded cheeks,
and a small nose, mouth and chin (Bradshaw, 1969; Bradshaw & McKenzie,
l97l; Gardner & Nallach, l965). Doll manufacturers, cartoonists,
and illustrators of children's books often exaggerate these features
in order to create "cute" baby animals and children.

Infants whose features are more ideally "babyish" might be
expected to be perceived as cuter than infants whose features are
less "babyish." According to Lorenz's hypothesis, these infants
should also elicit the strongest approach responses from caregivers
and other adults. Although infants who are not "cute" may also
elicit approach responses (for example, because they are "beautiful,"
or because they evoke pity), the present study is concerned only
with the effects of perceived infant cuteness on adult behavior.

(How individual variations in infant facial features affect adults'

perceptions of cuteness is discussed in Appendix C.)

1

2

Adults' responses togpictures of babies

 

Studies of human adults'responses to pictures of babies and
to pictures of adults indicate that women show stronger verbal preferences
for pictures of babies (Fullard, Reiling, Love, & Fowler, l975) and
toddlers (Beier, Smock, Izard, & Tougas, 1957) than men do. In one
study, pairs of pictures, one of an adult and one of a baby of the same
species, were shown to adult men and women who were asked to judge
which picture they liked more (Cann, T953, cited in Hess, l970).
Nomen preferred the baby picture more often than the men did, regardless
of their marital or parental status. However, men who were fathers
or whose wives were pregnant preferred the baby pictures more often
than other men did. In contrast, Berman (1975) found no sex difference
in college students' ratings of pictures of nonhuman primate infants
and adults, although, once again, infants were rated as more attractive
than adults. This finding may reflect minimal differences in attitudes
and experience with infants between males and females in the college
environment. Children also respond positively to pictures containing
infants (Bernick, 1966), and after puberty, show an increase in verbally
expressed preferences for infants over adults (Fullard et al., l975).

Pupil dilation is another possible index of preference. According
to Hess (l965). pupillary dilation reflects the degree of interest
or positive emotional arousal elicited by pictures. Hess and Polt
(l960) used pupillary dilation to compare the responses of men and
women to a picture of a baby and a picture of a woman holding a baby.
It was found that women showed greater pupillary changes in response
to these pictures than men did, indicating a greater preference.

In a second study, Hess (l970) found that the magnitude of pupillary

3
dilation corresponded to the degree of babyishness conveyed by stylized
drawings of human and animal faces.

It seems then, that adults prefer, and show a stronger positive
emotional response to, pictures and drawings of babies as compared
to pictures and drawings of adults. Moreover, it appears that these
tendencies are stronger in adult females than in adult males. But
do individual differences in infant facial features influence responses
to infants? Evidence suggests that they do.

Two studies have employed a rating technique whereby adults
were asked to judge drawings of infant faces which varied systematically
in their component features. In general, one particular variation of
each facial feature, such as eye position or eye size, was rated
as significantly more attractive than other variations of that feature
(Brooks & Hochberg, I960; Sternglanz, Gray & Murakami, l974). Interestingly
enough, males in the Sternglanz et al. (1974) study gave significantly
higher attractiveness ratings to all the pictures than females did,
although the specific feature variations that resulted in the highest
ratings were the same fbr both sexes. The amount of prior experience
with children did not affect the ratings.

Studies like these are informative, but do not answer the more
basic question of whether adult responses to line drawings are predictive
of their responses to real infant faces. Since adults often base
their impressions of other adults and children on such features as
general physical attractiveness, pupil size, facial angle, iris color,
and eye contact (Dion, l974; English & Palla, l97l; Hicks, Reaney,

& Hill, l967; Jones & Moyel, l97l; Stass & Willis, l967; Nalster,

Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann, 1966) it seems likely that adults also

4

will be influenced by physical features of infants. Evidence indicates

that this is so.

The importance of infant physical appearance to social relations

 

There is some evidence that the quality of parent-infant interaction
is affected by the subjectively rated cuteness of the infant; parents
of cuter newborn infants engage their infants in more eye-to-eye
contact, and hold and kiss their infants more than do parents of
less cute infants (Parke & Sawin, l975). However, since cuteness
in this study was not objectively defined, and ratings were made
by individuals other than the parent, the Parke and Sawin results
must be regarded as suggestive.

Certain facial expression changes, as well as invariant physiognomic
characteristics seem to be important determinants of caregiver responsive-
ness to infants. The smiling behavior of the infant is particularly
important in maintaining caregiver proximity and positive social
interaction (Bowlby, l969; Gewirtz, l968). Eye contact and widening
of the eyes are also effective in encouraging proximity and caregiving
from adults (Bennett, 1971). Stern (1974) has observed that infants
influence adult behavior by initiating and terminating eye contact
with them.

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether or
not adults' behavior is differentially affected by the degree of
cuteness perceived in photographs of infants. Although still photographs
eliminate much of the variation inherent in facial expression, they
provide an effective means of presenting infant facial features.

The effects of facial expression are not completely eliminated so

perceptions of cuteness are most likely based on the combined influence

5

of facial features and facial expression, as no doubt they are in
everyday interactions.

The adult behavioral responses chosen for study include looking,
smiling, and the skin conductance response (SCR). It was hypothesized
that infant photographs ranked cuter would elicit longer looking,
more smiling, and larger SCRs than infant photographs ranked less

cute.

METHOD

Participants

 

Forty-seven college students from introductory psychology
classes participated in the study. Most of the students received
extra credit for their research participation. The data from seven
research participants had to be discarded because of equipment problems
or experimenter errors, leaving a final sample of 40 (20 men and
20 women). The average age was 20.7 years, with males significantly
older than females (22.l years and l9.3 years respectively; t(38)=2.55,
E.< .02). There were no differences between males and females or
between participants viewing older and younger babies in the average
amount of contact they currently had with infants. Thirty of the
40 participants stated that they had had regular contact with infants
at some time since they entered high school. The number of participants
with previous infant contact did not differ significantly for the
sexes or for any of the conditions to which participants were assigned.
The only restriction placed on research participants was that
they be able to see reasonably well at a distance of three feet without
eye glasses. This restriction was necessary, since eye movements
could not easily be observed in participants wearing glasses because

of reflections from the lenses.

Stimuli

Six photographs of 4-month-old infants and six photographs
of 8-month-old infants were used as stimuli. These photographs were
chosen from a larger collection of infant photographs on the basis
of cuteness ratings obtained in an earlier investigation (see Appendix C).

Each participant observed photographs from only one age group.

Apparatus

Pairs of photographs of infants were presented via slides,
rear projected on a 48.5 by 41.5 cm screen set into one wall of
a sound-attenuated booth containing a comfortable arm chair. Two
Kodak Carousel slide projectors placed outside the booth were regulated
by Hunter timers.

During the experiment the participant's visual fixations were
recorded by an observer watching corneal reflections through a .64 cm
hole placed 8.16 cm below the rear projection screen. The observer
pressed two silent buttons in response to the participant's eye
movements, one button when the right photograph was fixated and the
other button when the left photograph was fixated. Visual fixation
data were recorded on the event marker channel of a Grass Model 7
polygraph located in an adjacent room. Slide changes were also
recorded polygraphically as were several physiological dependent

variables.

Dependent variables

 

Looking time. Looking time (the amount of time spent visually

 

fixating a stimulus) has been widely used to study the responses of

adults, children, infants, and animals to visual stimuli varying

8

on a number of dimensions (Berlyne, 1960; Fantz, 1961; Leckart & Faw,
l968). Complexity (Leckart & Bakan, 1965; Wohlwill, 1968), novelty
(Berlyne, 1958), incongruity (Berlyne & Lawrence, 1964; Connolly &
Harris, 1971), and verbally expressed preferences for visual stimuli
(Day, 1966) have all been found to affect adults', as well as children's,
looking time. When the variables determining the information value

of stimuli (predominantly complexity and novelty) are equated, looking
time is primarily related to the affective value of the stimulus
contents (Faw & Nunnally, 1967), with positive stimuli looked at
longer than neutral stimuli. Since photographs of strange infant

faces are reasonably similar in their levels of complexity and novelty,
adults' looking time was expected to be positively related to their
attractiveness.

In addition to being related to attractiveness of visual stimuli,
looking time has been suggested as an index of approach and avoidance
behavior (Webb, Matheny, & Larson, 1963). Since eye movements often
are not consciously controlled, they may be a more sensitive indicator
of an individual's preferences than overt verbal expressions. Looking
behavior also has been found to be consistent both within sessions
and between sessions (7-10 weeks apart) for individual research partici-
pants (Leckart & Bakan, 1969) and therefore is; a potentially useful
indicator of adult preferences for photographs of infants.

Smiling. The zygomaticus muscle, which extends between the
corner of the mouth and the cheekbone, is essential to the production
of a smile (Webb, 1974). Changes in this and other muscles can be
measured electromyographically, and even sma11,visua11y non-observable
changes can be detected (Schwartz, Fair, Greenberg, Friedman, &

Klerman, 1973). The frontalis muscle, which runs vertically across

9
the forehead, shows little change in activity when a happy facial
expression is made (Schwartz et al., 1973). An increase in activity
from both of these muscles indicates a general activation of facial
muscles or electrical interference with the signals, whereas an increase
in activity from the zygomaticus but not the frontalis indicates
smiling.

Skin conductance. SCRs are often used as a measure of emotional

 

arousal. For example, Berlyne, Craw, Salapatek, and Lewis (1963)

found that the amplitude of galvanic skin responses increased with
incongruity and novelty of visual displays. Larger galvanic skin

responses occurred in response to photographs considered to be aversive
(dead bodies) in another study (Geer & Klein, 1969). Yet another
investigation (Smith & Sloboda, 1968) discovered no systematic relationship
between the type of picture viewed (pleasant, unpleasant, neUtral)

and log conductance change scores. Since none of the photographs

of infants should be considered aversive by adults, it was hypothesized

that larger SCRs should occur when the cuter pictures were being viewed.

Procedure
The experimental procedure was first explained to the participant
(Appendix B), questions were answered, and signatures were obtained
on the standard Department of Psychology Research Consent Form (Appendix B).
The participant's left palm, left cheek and left forehead were
cleaned with 70% ethanol and allowed to dry prior to electrode
attachment. Two silver/silver chloride electrodes with contact areas
of .78 cm2 were then attached to the hypothenar eminence of the left

hand approximately 1.5 cm apart (see Bundy & Fitzgerald, 1975).

10

The electrolytic medium used was a Unibase preparation (Lykken &
Venables, 1971). These electrodes were used to measure SC changes.
Four Grass miniature silver electrodes (contact area = .12 cm2)
were attached to the participant's face in order to measure facial
expression changes electromyographically. Beckman Offner Paste was
used as the electrolyte. Two electrodes were placed side-by-side
over the zygomaticus muscle and the other two electrodes were placed
side-by-side over the frontalis muscle of the forehead.

Grounding was provided by a metal plate covered with Offner
Paste and attached to the participant's left wrist.

After the electrodes were attached, participants were seated
inside the experimental booth and asked to relax for a few minutes
while electrode connections and equipment functioning were checked.

When everything was in order, the instructions for Part 1 of the
experiment were given via an intercom located inside the booth (see
Appendix B for instructions read to the participants). When the
experimenter was certain that the instructions were understood,
Part I began.

Part 1 consisted of the presentation of a control photograph
(from the appropriate age group) paired with itself followed by
each of the six stimulus photographs paired with themselves. The
purpose of the control photograph was to prevent large initial responses
from being included in the main analysis. The participants controlled
the length of time each pair was on the screen by pressing a button
attached to the chair inside the booth when they were tired of looking
at a particular pair. The next pair was then automatically projected
after a 15 second blank slide interval (used to allow physiological

responses to return to baseline).

11

After all six stimulus pairs were shown, Part 2 began. Participants
were instructed over the intercom to simply look at the pairs of
photographs during this part of the experiment. All possible pairs (30)
of the six stimulus photographs were shown for 10 seconds each with
a blank slide interval of 1-2 seconds between each pair.

Part 3 was the same as Part 1.

In Part 4 participants were asked to rank prints of the six
photographs previously seen in their order of cuteness. Participants
were asked questions about their prior experience with infants and then
were debriefed. Debriefing consisted of an explanation of the experiment
in more detail. Polygraph records were shown to interested participants,
and those who wished to receive a copy of the general results of the
experiment were asked to fill out an envelope with their name and
address.

Slides within both age groups were presented in two different
orders (List 1 and List 2). One order was the reversal of the other
(see Appendix A, Table A1). Experimental conditions and the number
of participants assigned to each are shown in Table 1. Participants
were systematically assigned to a condition depending on their sex
and order of testing.

Eye movements were recorded by one of five different observers.

A double-observer system was used to determine inter-observer relia-
bilities. Two observers simultaneously recorded the looking behavior
of a single participant who looked at approximately 18 pairs of
slides for eight seconds each. The amount of time recorded for

each side of each slide was correlated for each pair of observers.
These correlations averaged .85 with a range of .69 to .94 and are

consistent with general findings in this area.)

12

Table 1

Number of Participants Assigned to Each Experimental Condition

 

 

Infant Age Group Order of Presentation Males Females
4-Month List 1 5 5
List 2 5 5
8-Month List 1 5 5
List 2 5 5

 

Data scoring

 

Looking time, smiling, and SC were scored during Parts 1 and 3.

The looking time score for each slide was the total amount of
time spent fixating the slide before the participant pushed the button
to remove the slide from the screen.

The smiling measure consisted of the percent change in average
zygomaticus EMG activity from the 5-second preslide interval to the
slide-on interval, scored using the integrated signal. Segments of
the integrated recording which were affected by artifacts or general
facial movement were not scored. These segments were identified
by visual inspection of the raw EMG signals from the zygomaticus
and frontalis muslces. The last second of each slide-on interval
was discarded due to equipment ertifact.

The magnitude of the first SCR beginning during the five seconds
following slide onset was measured for each slide. Because of the
preponderance of non-responses (scored as zero) the SCRs for each

slide in Part 1 and Part 3 were combined for most analyses.

13
During Part 2 only paired looking time was scored. (The term
"paired looking time" will be used to distinguish this variable from
the looking time measured during Parts 1 and 3.) The percent of time
spent looking at each slide in each pair was first calculated, and
then the average percent of time spent looking at each of the six

slides was determined.

RESULTS

Rank orders of the photographs (obtained during Part 4) were
significantly intercorrelated (E [18]=.54, p.< .02 for participants
viewing photographs of 4-month-olds; E:[18]=.47, p,< .05 for participants
viewing photographs of B—month-olds), although there were considerable
individual differences. There were 18 different orders for the
20 participants viewing photographs of 4-month-olds and 16 different
orders for the 20 participants viewing photographs of 8-month-olds.

The average ranks for each photograph were significantly correlated

for males and females viewing photographs of 4-month-olds (p£4]=.86,
p_< .05) and for males and females viewing photographs of 8-month-olds
(3I4]=.85, p'< .05) (see Appendix A, Table A2), indicating that
individual variations in rankings were not systematically related

to sex of participant. Because of the variability in cuteness rankings,
further analyses relate participants' responses to their own rankings
of the photographs rather than the actual photographs viewed.

Single factor analyses of variance with order of presentation
as the independent variable were performed for looking time, smiling,
and SC. Looking time and smiling were further analyzed for interactions
between time seen (Part 1 or Part 3) and order of presentation.

There were no significant effects of order. Accordingly the order
of stimulus presentation to which a participant was assigned was

excluded from subsequent analyses.

14

15

A 2 x 2 x 2 (sex of participant x age of infant x cuteness ranking
of photograph) multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the
four dependent variables: looking time, smiling, SC, and paired looking
time. Two levels of cuteness were established by considering the average
value of each dependent measure for the two cutest photographs and the
average value for the two least cute photographs. Data for Parts 1
and 3 were combined for looking time, smiling, and SC. An alpha
level of .05 was distributed among the separate tests in this analysis
and the multivariate analysis reported below.

The only significant multivariate E'was that for cuteness
(E[4,33]=l7.65, p_< .05, see Appendix A, Table A3). Variations in
looking time, smiling, SC, and paired looking time as a function of
ranked cuteness are illustrated in Figures 1 through 4. Post hoc
univariate analyses revealed significant effects of cuteness for
looking time (E[1,36]=24.65, p.< .05) and paired looking time (f[1,36]=41.54,
JB>< .05).

The computer program used for this analysis constructs a correlation
Inatrix for the variables under consideration. Three significant positive
<:orrelations were found in the 28 which were calculated. Average
amount of looking was correlated at p(38)=.41 (p_ < .05) with the
(lifference in looking between the most cute and the least cute photographs.
Siimilarly, average amount of smiling was correlated at [(38)=.84
(1;‘< .01) with the difference in smiling between the most cute and the
1east cute photographs. Individuals who looked at the photographs
Tionger overall showed a larger differentiation in looking between most
(:ute and least cute photographs than individuals who looked less overall.
‘The same type of relationship held for smiling. However, since the

*correlation between looking and smiling was -.19 (n.s.), the participants

Looking Time in Seconds

Percent Change in Smiling

14
13
12
11
10

7O
60
50
40
30
20
10

 

 

 

p
—
-
-

b

 

.4
N
00
.h
01
0‘

Ranked Cuteness

Figure 1. Time spent looking at infant
photographs at each cuteness rank.

 

 

 

L

 

Ranked Cuteness

Figure 2. Percent increase in smiling during
presentation of infant photographs at each
cuteness rank.

 

 

Magnitude of SCRs in Micromhos

Percent Paired Looking Time

14
12
10

ON-QOSCD

60

55

50

45

40

 

 

-
P
p
-

 

 

-l
N
w
.h
0'1
03

Ranked Cuteness

Figure 3. Magnitude of SCRs to infant
photographs at each cuteness rank.

 

 

 

 

Ranked Cuteness

Figure 4. Average percent of paired
looking time spent looking at infant
photographs at each cuteness rank.

'q

18

who looked for a long time were not necessarily those who smiled
a great deal. The third significant correlationwas that between
paired looking time and the difference in smiling between the
most and least cute photographs (p_[38]=.49, p_< .01).

A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 (sex of participant x age of infant x cuteness
ranking x time seen) multivariate analysis of variance was performed
on looking time and smiling to assess the effect of repeated
presentations (Part 1 and Part 3). The results of this analysis
are presented in Appendix A, Table A4. Significant multivariate
E_ratios were obtained for cuteness ([[2,35]=16.19, p_< .05),
time seen (£12,35]=12.61, p_< .05), and the interaction between
cuteness and time seen (fI2,35]=7.99, p_< .05). The effect of
cuteness could be attributed to looking time (fIl,36]=23.32,
p.< .05), as in the first analysis. The time seen effect also
was due to looking time (EI1,36]=25.92, p_< .05). Looking time
decreased from 13.9 seconds per slide during Part 1 to 8.9 seconds
per slide during Part 3. The significant interaction between
cuteness and time seen, again due to looking time ([11,36]=13.82,
p_< .05), indicated that the amount of decline in looking time
was dependent on cuteness level. As illustrated in Figure 5,
the decline in looking was less for the cuter photographs.

Because SORs occurred to only 38.54% (185/480) of the
photograph presentations, an analysis of variance was deemed
inappropriate to determine the effect of repeated presentation.
There was a significant decline (£f7.22, p_< .001) in the rate
of response from Part 1 (53.33%; 128/240) to Part 3 (23.75%; 57/240).

 

15
14
13
12
ll
10

Most Cute

Least Cute

Looking Time in Seconds

WONWO

 

 

 

Part 1 Part 3
Time Seen
Figure 5. Interaction between cuteness ranking
and time seen for looking time.
Aflthough the purpose of the control slide was to eliminate

large initial responses from being included in the main analysis,
how participants responded to this slide was of interest since
Berlyne (1958) has found that degree of novelty and length of
looking are positively related. The control slide was seen twice,
once at the beginning of Part 1 and once again at the beginning of
Part 3. Based on Berlyne's findings, it was predicted that the second
presentation of the control slide would elicit prolonged looking,
since it would be relatively novel compared to the other pictures,
each of which had been presented 11 times prior to the second presentation

of the control slide.

 

aalfi‘

 

20

Separate 2 x 2 x 2 (sex of participant x age of infant photograph
viewed x time seen) repeated measures analyses of variance were performed
for looking and smiling at the control slide. There were no significant
effects or interactions for either analysis.

Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-ranks tests were then performed
to determine whether or not looking and smiling at the control slide
changed relative to looking and smiling at the other six slides.

The basic datum for this analysis was the number of slides looked

or smiled at less than the control slide during Part 1 and during

Part 3. The change in rank was significant for looking time (gf3.44,
p < .001, one-tailed test) with a larger number of slides being looked
at less than the control slide during Part 3 than during Part 1.

There was no significant change in rank for smiling.

A 83R to the control slide occurred for half the participants
iduring both Part 1 and Part 3. This frequency of response was significantly

higher than the frequency of response to the other six slides during

Part 3 (x2[l]=15.22, p < .001).

DISCUSSION

The hypothesis that college students' behavior is differentially
affected by the degree of perceived cuteness of infant photographs
was confirmed for looking time. Photographs ranked as cuter were
looked at longer. It is possible that looking preferences were
elicited by something other than perceived cuteness, and that the
participants' perceptions of cuteness were directly determined by
how long they looked at a particular photograph. However, this
explanation seems unlikely because of the short lengths of time
involved and because of the general comment by many participants
that they had looked longer at the cuter babies.

Smiling increased when the photographs were on the screen
(Figure 2), indicating that smiling is a likely response to a photograph
crf an infant. Before accepting this conclusion, however, it is necessary
tn) determine whether or not an increase in smiling is a general response
t1) any photograph. The amount of smiling was not significantly related
tr) ranked cuteness of the photographs. It is possible that with a
Wider range of cuteness, a relationship between smiling and cuteness
MKNJld be evident, although it is also possible that smiling is a general
Ii'eSponse to infants regardless of their cuteness. The high positive
coY‘r‘elation between average amount of smiling and the difference in
Sm‘iling between the most cute and least cute photographs indicates
that participants who smiled a lot did discriminate between levels
0f'<:uteness in their smiling responses. A significant effect of

21

22

cuteness on smiling might be evident if only the data from participants
who consistently smiled were considered. There was slightly more
smiling to the cutest photograph than to the others (Figure 2).
Another problem with the smiling measure can be traced to the instructions
given to the participants (Appendix B). They knew their facial
expressions were being monitored both electromyographically and
supposedly by an experimenter's observation. They were told to try
to keep their face in a natural position. Some participants may have
tried harder to maintain a "straight face" than others, and the instructions
in general may have eliminated much of the smiling which would have
occurred naturally. Diverting the participant's attention away from
his or her face may eliminate this problem. However, Schwartz et al.
(1973) attached electrodes to other parts of their participants' bodies
to help keep their attention away from their faces, and found no differences
in pattern of responses from a condition where facial expression obviously
was being monitored.

SC also was unrelated to ranked cuteness. The major problem
vvith this measure was the marked degree of response variability.
SCRs occurred to only 38.33% of the presentations of photographs,
arui there was a wide range in the magnitude of the responses. Apparently,
wuatching slides of infants is not a very arousing experience, at least
as reflected by SCRs.

Repeated exposure to photographs of infants produced shorter
vcfluntary looking times and a decrease in the number of SCRs from
Part 1 to Part 3. There was not, however, a decrease in looking.
Snriling, or the size of the SCR within Parts 1 and 3, implying that
tihere was no rapid habituation of responses to the photographs.

The control slide, which was relatively novel both times it was seen.

23

'was responded to in the same way both times. This indicates that the
observed habituation of looking and SCRs from Part 1 to Part 3 was
specific to the six infant photographs each participant was exposed
to and not a generalized habituation to all infant photographs.

The increase in rank of the control slide for looking time supports
the general observation that novel stimuli are looked at longer than
are familiar stimuli.

There were no significant differences in the length of time
photographs were looked at, in the amount of smiling, and in how
the photographs were ranked for the two sexes. A more important
consideration than sex when investigating responsiveness to infant
photographs might be experience with infants. Participants in this
study reported no sex differences in experience with infants.

The observation that participants looked longer at infant
photographs which they ranked higher in cuteness suggests that adults
Inay vary their looking at real infants who differ in perceived cuteness.
()f course, with real infants there are many more cues than just
“facial features that may contribute to a perception of cuteness.

Eth if looking behavior is affected by cuteness, however it is defined
tzy'an individual, this variation in adult behavior could affect the
development of individual infants.

Eye contact between an adult and an infant contributes to the
atrtachment process (Robson, 1967), is related to visual fixation
behavior of female infants (Moss & Robson, 1968), and shows a temporal
Pairterning very similar to that of adult verbal conversation (Jaffe,
Stern, & Peery, 1973). The amount of time a mother looks at her

ifI‘f'ant has also been shown to be positively related to the infant's

24

total fixation time when shown a series of pictures (Noll, 1971),
and the sight of an adult's eyes seems to be a "setting event" for
infant conditioning (Bloom, 1974). Although Bloom (1974) found

that an averted gaze was just as effective a catalyst for learning
as was a direct gaze, in natural situations an adult's eyes are most
likely to be visible to the infant when the adult is looking at the
infant.

Stern (1974) investigated the mutual gazing patterns of mother—
infant dyads in detail. He found that the infant initiates and terminates
94% of all mutual gazes, which might imply that the looking behavior
of the mother is irrelevant to the patterning of eye contact. However,
he also noted that when the mother was gazing at the infant, the
probability that the infant would initiate a gaze was increased
and the probability that the infant would terminate a gaze was decreased.
So, although the infant controls the exact timing of mutual gazes,
the mother's looking behavior certainly influences this timing.

Since the frequency and duration of mutual visual regard appears
to be related to some aspects of infant development, and since an adult's
looking at an infant seems to be influenced by how cute the infant
is perceived to be, more information on how "cuteness" is defined
would be enlightening. The amount of contact an adult has with other
infants may determine how important perceived cuteness is to his
or her behavior. Also, if repeated experience with an infant increases
perceived cuteness, parents' behavior may be only minimally affected
by their own infant's physical appearance. Parke and Sawin (1975)
observed that parents of cuter newborn infants looked longer at their
infants during the first few days of the infant's life, but whether

or not this increased looking leads to an earlier or stronger than

25
average establishment of a pattern of mutual gaze is unknown. How
the pattern of mutual visual regard develops from this point surely
depends on a variety of factors. For example, both parental attitudes
and sex of the infant have been shown to be relevant to the development
of mutual gaze patterns (Moss & Robson, 1968). The results of the
current study suggest that the physical appearance of the infant,
and adults' perceptions of the infant's cuteness be included in future
investigations of adult-infant relations, particularly in regard to

mutual gazing behavior.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

Table A1

Order of Presentation of Stimuli

 

Infant Age Group

 

4 Months ‘ 8 Months

 

Left Slide Tray Right Slide Tray Left Slide Tray Right Slide Tray

 

Part 1 control control control control
l4 l4 8 8
6 6 12 12
5 5 5 5
7 7 10 10
12 12 18 18
13 13 14 14
Part 2 12 7 12 8
14 13 14 18
7 5 8 5
6 12 10 12
5 l4 5 14
13 12 18 12
6 >5 10 5
12 14 12 14
13 6 18 10
14 7 l4 8
5 13 5 18
7 6 8 10
12 5 12 5
14 6 14 10
7 l3 8 l8

(slide trays are then changed sides for remaining 15 pairs)

Part 3 Same as Part 1.

¥

Note. The order of presentation for half the participants was the
reverse of that above.

26

27
Table A2
Average Rankings of Each Infant Photograph

by Male and Female Participants

 

Infant Age Group Photograph Males Females

 

 

4 Months 13 1.8 1.8
5 2.2 2.2
12 3.6 2.9
6 3.1 4.0
14 4.5 5.3
7 5.8 4.8
8 Months 5 1.3 2.9
8 2.5 1.9
10 3.1 3.3
14 4.1 3.7
12 4.2 3.8
18 5.8 5.4

 

28
Table A3
Multivariate Tests of the Effects of Sex of Participant,
Age of Infant in Photographs, and Cuteness Rankings of Photographs

on Looking Time, Smiling, SCR, and Paired Looking Time

 

 

Source MShypothesis MSerror df I F P

Sex --- --- 4, 33 .69 .6]
Age --- --- 4, 33 .50 .74
Sex x Age --- --- 4, 33 1.08 .38
Cuteness --- --- 4, 33 17.65 .0001*

Univariate Post Hoc

Looking 376.69 15.28 1. 36 24.65 .0001*
Smiling 2.59 .73 l, 36 3.56 .07
SCR 10.00 155.91 1. 36 .06 .80
Paired Looking 5336.10 128.46 1, 36 41.54 .0001*
Sex x Cuteness --- --- 4. 33 .56 .69
Age x Cuteness --- -—- 4. 33 .94 .45
Sex x Age x Cuteness --- --- 4. 33 .84 51

 

*Significant at a = .05

29
Table A4

Multivariate Tests of the Effects of Sex of Participant,
Age of Infant in Photograph, Cuteness Rankings of Photographs,

and Time Seen (Part 1 or Part 3) on Looking Time and Smiling

 

 

Source MShypothesis MSerror df ' F P
Sex —-- --- 2, 35 .52 .60
Age --- --- 2, 35 .30 .74
Sex x Age --- --- 2, 35 1.82 .18
Cuteness --- --- 2, 35 16.19 .0001*

Univariate Post Hoc

Looking 1452.03 62.27 1, 36 23.32 .0001*

Smiling 11.55 2.92 l, 36 3.96 .05
Sex x Cuteness --- --- 2, 35 .12 .88
Age x Cuteness --- --- 2, 35 .90 .42
Sex x Age x Cuteness --- --- ' 2, 35 1.39 .26
Time --- --- 2, 35 12.61 .0001*

Univariate Post Hoc

Looking 3422.50 132.04 1, 36 25.92 .0001*

Smiling .21 2.19 l, 36 .10 .76 .
Sex x Time ' -—- -—- 2, 35 2.35 .11
Age x Time ' --- --- 2, 35 .60 .56
Sex x Age x Time --- --- 2, 35 1.73 .19
Cuteness x Time --- --- 2, 35 7.99 .0014*

Univariate Post Hoc
Looking 191.84 13.88 1. 36 13.82 .0007*
Smiling 1.43 1.86 l, 36 .76 .39

. 35 1.82 .18

35 1.61 .21

Sex x Cuteness x Time --- —-—

Age x Cuteness x Time --- -_-

N N N
so

Sex x Age x Cuteness x Time --- ---

*Significant at a = .05

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Instructions to Participants

 

We are interested in how adults respond to photographs of
infants. In particular, we want to find out how pictures of different
babies affect your general level of arousal (as measured by the galvanic
skin response) and very small changes in facial expression (as measured
by electromyography). To make these measurements I will attach two
sensors to the palm of your left hand, a metal plate to your left
wrist and four small sensors to your face. These sensors can pick
up very small changes in skin sweating activity and muscle movement.
These changes will be recorded by equipment in the next room while you
look at photographs of babies.

During the experiment you will be seated inside this booth and
photographs of babies will be projected from back here onto the screen
in front of you. Some of the time you will be asked to control slide
changes by pushing a button on the arm of the chair inside the booth;
at other times the slide changes will be automatic. You will be
instructed over an intercom inside the booth as to exactly what you
are to do.

While you are looking at the photographs, an observer will be

watching you through a small hole below the screen. He will be watching

3O

31

for any noticeable changes in facial expression. You should try

to keep your face relaxed and neutral during the experiment; the

sensors can detect small changes which you probably won't even notice.
You should also try to keep your left hand as still as possible,

without being uncomfortable, to make recording skin changes easier.

If for any reason you decide not to participate in this experiment,

just let one of us know and we will stop the experiment. The intercom
inside the booth is connected to the next room so I will be able to

hear you if you wish to stop. Do you have any questions?

u—l
O

32

Michigan State University
Department of Psychology

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM
I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being
conducted by: Katherine Hildebrandt
under the supervision of: H. E. Fitzgerald

The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation
that has been given and what my participation will involve.

I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in
the study at any time without penalty.

I understand that the results of the study will be treated in
strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within
these restrictions, results of the study will be made available
to me at my request.

I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee
any beneficial results to me.

I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation
of the study after my participation is completed.

Signed

 

Date

 

33

Instructions Read to Participants During Experiment

Part 1:
During this part of the experiment you will see pairs of baby
pictures; both pictures of the pair will be of the same baby.
You may look at each pair as long as you'd like. When you are
tired of looking at the pair you should press the button on the
right side of your chair. Be sure you press the button only
once. There will then be a blank slide interval of about
15 seconds followed by another pair of pictures. You should
again look at the picture as long as you'd like, and press the
button when you're tired of it. You should continue to do this
with each pair ofpictures. Do you have any questions? (Wait
for response.) The first pair will come on the screen in about
15 seconds.

Part 2:
During this part of the experiment you will see a number of
combinations of the pictures you just saw. Slide changes will
be automatic; all you have to do is look at the pictures. About
half way through the series there will be a short break for a
slide change.

Part 3:
For this part you are to do the same thing you did at the
beginning of the experiment; look at each pair as long as you
would like, then press the button when you are tired of a
particular pair.

Part 4:
The last thing I'd like you to do before getting out of the

booth is to smile broadly for a few seconds. 0K, thank you.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

PILOT STUDY

Introduction

 

The purpose of the initial study was twofold: first to investigate
the relationship between rated cuteness of infant photographs and
physiognomic characteristics of the infants' faces, and second to obtain
a set of infant photographs varying in rated cuteness for use in a
subsequent study.

Previous studies of babyishness have typically employed a rating
technique whereby adults are asked to judge drawings of infant faces
which vary systematically in their component features. Simple drawings
were rated as appearing "young" in two related studies if the eyes
were high or wide, the nose short and the mouth narrow (Bradshaw, 1969;
Bradshaw & McKenzie, 1971). The position of the eyes has also been
found to affect ratings of cuteness, with eyes positioned slightly
above the center of the face being rated cuter than eyes placed lower
or higher on the face (Brooks & Hochberg, 1960). Gardner and Wallach
(1965) even developed a super "babyish" profile by exaggerating real
infants' facial proportions.

An extensive investigation of the relationship between infant
facial features and adults' ratings of attractiveness was conducted
by Sternglanz, Gray and Murakami (1974). Eye height, eye width,

34

35
eye height and width together, iris size, and vertical feature position
were systematically and individually varied. In general, one particular
variation of each feature was rated as significantly more attractive
than other variations of that feature. A composite drawing including the
most highly rated facial features resulted in a face characterized
by a high forehead and large eyes. The authors concluded that Lorenz's
(1943) hypothesis that certain infantile facial features are attractive
to adults was supported. The present study attempted to extend these

findings to photographs of real infants.

Method

Participants

 

Participants were 23 male and 20 female college students recruited
from various sources, the majority from introductory psychology classes.
The average age of the males was 21.96 years (§D_= 4.06 years) and of
the females was 20.05 years (§D_= 1.79 years). The majority of the
participants (33/43) stated that they currently had no regular contact

with infants.

Stimuli

Stimuli were obtained by photographing l4 4-month-old infants

A
|><|
N

19.13 weeks, _sp = .86) and 18 8-month-old infants (X = 35.29 weeks,

C?
II

___ 1.26). Infants were brought to the laboratory by their parents
and photographed while seated in a high chair or in their parent's

lap, at a time when their facial expression was judged to be relatively
neutral. Each infant was photographed at least twice. Eleven photographs
from each age group were chosen to serve as stimuli with photographic

quality and neutrality of expression as the principle selection criteria.

36
Each photograph was independently rated or measured by two

experimenters on each of the following characteristics: 1) sex
(0 = female, 1 = male); 2) size of head (measured from the top of the
head to the bottom of the chin with the projector at a set distance);
3) distance from top of head to line drawn between corners of eyes;
4) direction of gaze (0 = indirect, l = direct); 5) eye color (0 = brown,
1 = blue); 6) distance between inside corners of the eyes; 7) diameter
of the iris (left and right averaged); 8) eye height (left and right
averaged); 9) eye width (left and right averaged); 10) mouth (0 = open,
1 = closed); and 11) drooling (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Measurements 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were made with the photograph
adjusted so that the distance from the top of the head to the chin
was 192 millimeters. All of the measurements were made to the nearest
millimeter; disagreements between the two experimenters were resolved
by averaging the two measurements. In no case did the two experimenters

disagree by more than three millimeters.

Procedure

Each participant observed 30 pairs of infant photographs for
10 seconds each. The photographs were presented via slides rear
projected on a screen set into one wall of a booth containing a
comfortable arm chair. Participants were instructed to decide which
photograph of a pair was cuter, and then to circle LEFT or RIGHT on
a prepared form, corresponding to the side on which the cuter photograph
appeared.

Each participant rated pairs of photographs from one age group
only. Thirty pairs were randomly chosen from the 110 pairs possible

when 11 stimuli are used, with the constraint that when a pair was

37

selected, its left-right reversal was removed from the list. When
30 pairs were chosen, this group was designated List 1. List 2 consisted
of the remaining possible pairs (left-right order again randomly
determined) plus five of the pairs included in List 1. These five
common pairs were included to make it possible to compare, at least
in part, the pattern of preferences for participants rating List 1
and those rating List 2. The order of presentation of pairs in each
list was randomized, except that the five common pairs were placed
at the same points in each list (pairs 5, 6, ll, 13, and 25). See
Table Cl for the number of participants assigned to each condition.

After the participant finished the ratings he or she was asked
how much contact he or she currently had with infants and what aspects
of the photographs were most important in helping him or her decide

which photographs were cuter.

Table C1

Number of Participants Assigned to Each Condition

 

 

 

Infant Age Group Order of Presentation Males Females
4-Month List 1 6 5
List 2 5 5
8-Month List 1 6 5
List 2 6 5
Results

Cuteness Ratings

 

The results of the cuteness ratings are summarized in Tables

C2 and C3. Choices for each cell are expressed in proportions, since

38
the number of participants within each cell varied from 5 to 21. The

sum of the proportions reflects the relative number of times each
photograph was rated cuter than the other 10 photographs.

A one-dimensional scaling procedure was applied to both grOUps
of data (Guilford, 1954). A chi-square test of the internal consistency
of the obtained scale values was significant (x2 [45] = 70.73, p_< .01
for 4-month-olds, x2[45] = 65.40, p_< .01 for 8-month-olds), indicating
that more than one scale is involved. Due to the manner in which
these data were collected, a multidimensional scaling procedure
was not feasible. Therefore, the photographs were assigned ranks
based on the magnitude of the sum of pr0portions for each photograph,
resulting in the ranks shown in Table C4. There were no significant
differences between ranks obtained for males alone and ranks obtained

for females alone for either group of photographs.

Table C2
Proportion of Participants Choosing Each Photograph as Cuter

Than Each Other Photograph of 4-Month-01ds

 

Photograph Photograph Chosen as Cuter

 

Chosen as
Less Cute 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14

 

10 36 64 27 09 .55 .55 xxx 40 48 73 50
11 40 1 00 60 00 .50 .30 50 xxx 70 91 36
12 64 60 36 18 50 .40 52 30 xxx 80 20
13 27 80 29 00 30 .40 27 .09 20 xxx 18
14 73 90 73 O9 86 .70 50 .64 80 82 xxx

 

 

39
Table C3
Proportion of Participants Choosing Each Photograph as Cuter

Than Each Other Photograph of 8-Month-01ds

 

Photograph Photograph Chosen as Cuter

 

Chosen as
Less Cute 5 6 8 9 10 12 l3 l4 l6 17 18

 

5 . . . . . . . . .
6 .36 xxx .82 .05 .45 .09 .27 .09 .36 .27 .09
8 . . . . . . . . . .
9 1.00 .95 .82 xxx .64 .73 .91 .91 .82 .82 .45

10 .55 .55 .55 .36 xxx .18 .45 .45 .55 .45 .09
12 .77 .91 .82 .27 .82 xxx .82 .36 .55 .91 .27
13 .55 .73 .73 .09 .55 .18 xxx .27 .68 .45 .36
14 1.00 .91 .73 .09 .55 .64 .73 xxx .82 .91 .27
16 .64 .64 .45 .18 .45 .45 .32 .18 xxx .45 .09
17 .64 .73 .41 .18 .55 .09 .55 09 .55 xxx .09

18 1.00 .91 1.00 .55 .91 .73 .64 :73 .91 .91 xxx

 

Z 7.79 7.15 6.69 1.95 5.82 3.50 5.41 3.35 6.15 6.12 1.71

 

Table C4

Rank Order of Photographs

 

 

 

 

 

 

4-Month-01ds 8-Month-Olds
Sum of Sum of
Rank Photo Sex Proportions Rank Photo Sex Proportions

1 5 M 8.06 1 5 F 7.79
2 13 M 7.20 2 6 F 7.15
3 12 F 5.50 3 8 F 6.69
4 10 M 5.33 4 16 F 6.15
5 9 F 5.08 5 17 F 6.12
6 8 M 5.05 6 10 M 5.82
7 11 F 4.73 7 13 F 5.41
8 6 M 4.70 8 12 M 3.50
9 4 F 4.69 9 14 M 3.35
10 14 F 3.23 10 9 M 1.95
11 7 M .73 11 18 F 1.71

 

 

Binomial tests of the differences in ratings on the five common

pairs between the two lists showed that there were no significant

40
differences for the 4-month-old lists and one significant difference
for the 8-month-old lists (p_= .03 for the pair including photographs
16 and 13).

Relationship Between Cuteness Ratings and Facial Features

 

The measurements and ratings of the facial features of the
infants in the 11 photographs in each group are shown in Tables

C5 and C6 with the photographs arranged in rank order.

Table C5
Measurements and Ratings of Facial Features

in Photographs of 4-Month-01d Infants

 

Facial Feature Photograph

 

 

(See Text for

Descriptions) 5 13 12 10 9 8 11 6 4 l4 7
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
2 209 228 226 242 245 248 200 250 290 200 254
3 121 107 105 112 113 114 103 115 104 113 121
4 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 O 1 0 0
6 27 34 32 34 34 30 33 33 34 36 36
7 13.015.015.014.013.013.517.5 14.915.517.014.0
8 12.011.5 13.012.0 11.012.013.5 11.0 13.010.0 10.0
9 21.0 25.0 23.5 22.0 23.0 22.5 25 5 21.0 26.0 25.5 23.5
10 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 1 1 O
11 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

 

The correlations between the ranks of the photographs and their
scores on the 11 facial characteristics are reported in Table C7.
Only one correlation is significant, that for the distance between
the inside corners of the eyes of the 4-month-olds. Photographs

of 4-month-old babies with less distance between the eyes were rated

cuter than those with larger distances between the eyes. Since

41
this is the only significant correlation, and since the correlation
for the 8-month-olds is in the opposite direction, this relationship
is probably a chance finding. Due to the small amount of data
available and the unsystematic appearance of graphs of facial features
plotted against ranks of photographs, no further attempts were made
to describe the relationship between these variables. Future studies

are planned to further investigate this problem.

Table 06
Measurements and Ratings of Facial Features

in Photographs of 8-Month-01d Infants

 

 

 

Facial Feature Photograph

(See Text for

Descriptions 5 6 8 16 17 10 13 12 14 9 18
1 0 O 0 0 0 1 0 l 1 l O
2 120 112 139 135 145 118 115 125 126 124 126
3 70 71 77 73 74 66 67 69 72 70 67
4 l l l l l O l 1 l 0 0
5 1 0 l O l 0 1 l l 1 1
6 21 20 29 28 27 18 22 20 18 20 20
7 9.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.010.011.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0
8 6.0 8.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.0
9 14.5 15.0 14.5 14.0 14.0 15.0 17.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0
10 0 0 l 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 1 0 1

 

The participants' statements about which features of the photographs
were most important in helping them decide which were cuter are summarized
in Table C8. The number of responses elicited from participants by
the three experimenters were not significantly different (p = .93,

1.34. 1.20, p< .05).

42

Tab1e C7

Correlations Between Cuteness Rankings and Facial Features

 

 

 

Facial Feature 4-Month 8-Month
1 -.23 .54
2 -.03 -.03
3 .08 -.45
4 -.02 -.58
5 -.06 .39
6 .65* -.36
7 .38 .38
8 -.49 .04
9 .28 -.07
10 .18 -.30
ll .18 .48
*p_< .05
Table C8

Features of the Photographs Mentioned as Being Most Important

When Rating Cuteness

 

Number of Responses

 

4-Month-01ds

8-Month-Olds

 

 

Feature Males Females Total Males Females Total Total
Facial Expression 9 7 l6 6 10 16 32
Eyes 6 8 14 10 8 18 32
Hair 4 6 10 9 3 12 22
Fatness 4 3 7 9 3 12 19
Facial Proportions 2 3 5 4 0 4 9
Ears 2 1 3 4 2 6 9
Complexion l 1 2 O 3 3 5
Nose 0 1 l 2 1 3 4
Drooling 2 0 2 l 0 1 3
Mouth 1 l 2 1 0 l 3
Eyelashes 0 3 3 0 0 0 3
Markings on Face 0 O O 2 1 3 3
Clothes 0 0 0 l 1 2 2
Miscellaneous 2 l 3 2 2 4 7

 

43
Choice of Photographs for Subsequent Study

Six photographs from each age group were chosen for use in the

subsequent study. Choices were based on the following criteria:

1. 3 photographs with sum of proportions greater than 5.0
(chosen as cuter than the other 10 photographs more than
half the time) and 3 photographs with sum of proportions
less than 5.0 were chosen.

2. At least one of each sex in the 3 photographs with sum
of proportions greater than 5.0 and in the 3 photographs
with sum of proportions less than 5.0 were chosen.

3. Higher ranked photographs which were chosen were rated
cuter than all lower ranked photographs which were chosen
at least 50% of the time.

The six photographs chosen for each group and cell proportions (taken

from Tables C2 and C3) are shown in Tables C9 and C10.

Table C9
Cuteness Ratings (Expressed as Proportions) of Photographs

of 4-Month-Old Infants Chosen for Use in Subsequent Study

 

Photograph Chosen as Cuter

 

Photograph Chosen as Less Cute 5 13 12 6 14 7

 

5 xxx .20 .40 .00 .10 .00
13 .80 xxx .20 .29 .18 .00
12 .60 .80 xxx .36 .20 .18

6 1.00 .71 .64 xxx .27 .10
14 90 82 80 .73 xxx .09

7 1:00 1:00 :82 .90 .91 xxx

 

44

Table C10
Cuteness Ratings (Expressed as Proportions) of Photographs

of 8-Month-01d Infants Chosen for Use in Subsequent Study

 

Photograph Chosen as Cuter

 

Photograph Chosen as Less Cute 5 8 10 12 14 18

 

 

5 xxx .36 .45 .23 .00 .00

8 .64 xxx_ .45 .18 .27 .00

10 .55 .55 xxx .18 .45 .09

12 .77 .82 .82 xxx .36 .27

14 1.00 .73 .55 .64 xxx .27

18 1.00 1.00 .91 .73 .73 xxx
Discussion

 

Infant cuteness seems to be determined by a complex combination
of many factors, including facial features, facial expression and
individual differences in raters. Future studies utilizing a larger
number of infant photographs and larger samples of adults are planned
to attempt to determine exactly how these factors affect cuteness
ratings. More saphisticated statistical techniques than those used
here will be necessary.

In sum, the question of what makes a baby cute has been answered
only tentatively. The next question -- Does the degree of perceived
cuteness of an infant affect adult behavior? -- was investigated

in a subsequent study.

45

References

 

Bradshaw, J. L. The information conveyed by varying the dimensions
of features in human outline faces. Perception and Psychophysics,
1969’ g: 5'9.

 

Bradshaw, J. L., & McKenzie, B. E. Judging outline faces: A developmental
study. Child Development, 1971, 42, 929-937.

 

Brooks, V., & Hochberg, J. A psychophysical study of cuteness.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1960, 11, 205.

 

Gardner, B. T., & Wallach, L. Shapes of figures identified as a baby's
head. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 29, 135-142.

 

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1954.

 

Lorenz, K. Die angeborenen Formen Moglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift
fur Tierpsychologie, 1943, 5, 235-409.

 

 

Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J., & Murakami, M. An ethological approach
to adult preferences for infantile facial features. Paper
presented at the 1974 meetings of the Animal Behavior Society,
University of Illinois.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Beier, E. G., Smock, C. 0., Izard, C. E., & Tougas, R. R. Responses
to the human face as a standard stimulus: a reexamination.
Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1957, 21, 165-170.

 

Bennett, S. Infant-caretaker interactions.~ Journal of the American
Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1971, 19, 321—335.

 

 

Berlyne, D. E. The influence of complexity and novelty in visual
figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1958. 5.5.. 789-796.

Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-
Hill. 1960.

 

Berlyne, D. E., Craw, M. A., Salapatek, P. H., & Lewis, J. L. Novelty,
complexity, incongruity, extrinsic motivation, and the GSR.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1963, pp, 560-567.

 

Berlyne, D. E., 8 Lawrence, G. H. Effects of complexity and incongruity
variables on GSR, investigatory behavior and verbally expressed
preference. Journal of General Psyphology, 1964, 21, 21-45.

 

Berman, P. W. Attraction to infants: Are sex differences innate and
invariant? Paper presented at the 1975 meetings of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Bernick, N. The development of children's preferences for social
objects as evidenced by their pupil responses. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1966.

Bloom, K. Eye contact as a setting event for infant learning. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology. 1974, 11, 250—263.

 

Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. Volume 1: Attachment. New York:
Basic Books, 1969.

 

Bradshaw, J. L. The information conveyed by varying the dimensions
of features in human outline faces. Perception and Psychophysics,
19699 £9 5’9.

 

Bradshaw, J. L., & McKenzie, B. E. Judging outline faces: a developmental
study. Child Development, 1971, 42, 929-937.

 

46

47

Brooks, V., 8 Hochberg, J. A psychophysical study of cuteness.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1960, 11, 205.

 

Bundy, R. 5., 8 Fitzgerald, H. E. Stimulus specificity of electrodermal
recovery time: An examination and reinterpretation of the
evidence. Psychpphysiology, 1975, 12, 406—411.

 

Connolly, M. F., 8 Harris, L. Effects of stimulus incongruity on
children's curiosity as measured by looking time and expression
change. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 29, 232—234.

Day, H. Looking time as a function of stimulus variables and individual
differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 423—428.

 

Dion, K. K. Children's physical attractiveness and sex as determinants
of adult punitiveness. Developmental Psychology. 1974, 19,
772-778.

English, R., 8 Palla, D. A. Attitudes towards a photograph of a
mildly and severely mentally retarded child. Training School
Bulletin, 1971, 99, 55—63.

 

Fantz, R. L. The origin of form perception. Scientific American,
1961, 299, 66-72.

 

Faw, T. T., 8 Nunnally, J. C. The effects on eye movements of complexity,
novelty and affective tone. Perception and Psychpphysics,
1967, 2, 2634267.

 

Fullard, W., Reiling, A., Love, C., 8 Shaw, F. An investigation of
Lorenz's "Babyness." Paper presented at the 1975 meetings of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, Colorado.

Gardner, B. T., 8 Wallach, L. Shapes of figures identified as a baby's
head. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 29, 135-142.

 

Geer, J. H., 8 Klein, K. Effects of two independent stresses upon
autonomic responding. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969,
74. 237-241.

 

Gewirtz, J. On designing the functional environment of the child
to facilitate behavioral development. In L. L. Dittman (Ed.),
Early Child Care: The New Perspectives. New York: Atherton
Press, 1968.

 

Hess, E. H. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 1965,
212, 46-54.

 

Hess, E. H. Ethology and developmental psychology. In Mussen, P.
(Ed.), Carmichaels' Manual of Child 9§ycholpgy. Volume 1, 1970.

 

Hess, E. H., 8 Polt. J. M. Pupil size as related to interest value
of visual stimuli. Science, 1960, 192, 349-350.

48

Hicks, R. A., Reaney, T., 8 Hill, L. Effects of pupil size and facial
angle on preference for photographs of a young woman. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 1967, 29, 388-390.

 

 

Jaffe, J., Stern, D. N., 8 Peery, J. C. Conversational coupling
of gaze behavior in prelinguistic human development. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 1973, 2, 321-329.

 

Jones, 2. R., 8 Moyel, I. S. The influence of iris color and pupil
size on expressed affect. Psychbnomic Science, 1971, 22, 126—127.

 

Leckart, B. T., 8 Bakan, P. Complexity judgments of photographs and
looking time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 21, 16-18.

 

Leckart, B. T., 8 Faw, T. T. Looking time: a bibliography. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 1968, 21, 91-95.

 

 

Lorenz, K. Die angeborenen Formen moglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift
fur Tie1~psychologie, 1943, 9, 245—409.

 

 

Lorenz, K. Physiological mechanisms in animal behavior. In Symposia
of the Society for Experimental Biology. No. 4. New York:
Academic Press, 1950.

 

Lykken, D. T., 8 Venables, P. H. Direct measurements of skin conductance:
a proposal for standardization. Psychophysiology, 1971, 9,
656-672.

 

Moss, H. A., 8 Robson, K. S. ‘Maternal influences in early social
visual behavior. Child Development, 1968, 99, 401—408.

 

Noll, R. L. The relationship between visual behavior of mothers and
infant attentiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International,
1971, 92(l-A). 250.

 

Parke, R. D., 8 Sawin, D. B. Infant characteristics and behavior as
elicitors of maternal and paternal responsivity in the newborn
period. Paper presented at the 1975 meetings of the Society
for Research in Child Development, Denver, Colorado.

Robson, K. S. The role of eye-to-eye contact in maternal-infant
attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1967,
89 13-27.

 

Schwartz, G. E., Fair, P. L., Greenberg, P. S., Friedman, M. J.,
8 Klerman, G. L. Facial electromyography in the assessment
of emotion. Paper presented at the 1973 meetings of the
Society for Psychophysiological Research, Galveston, Texas.

Smith, E. E., 8 Sloboda, W. Some relations between affect and recall:
An exploratory study. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 12, 257-258.

 

Stass, J. W., 8 Willis, F. N. Eye contact, pupil dilation, and
personal preference. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 2, 375-376.

 

49

Stern, D. N. Mother and infant at play: the dyadic interaction
involving facial vocal and gaze behaviors. In Lewis, M.,
and Rosenblum, L. A. (Eds.), The Effect of the Infant on its
Caregiver. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.

Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J., 8 Murakami, M. An ethological approach
to adult preferences for infantile facial features. Paper
presented at the 1974 meetings of the Animal Behavior Society,
University of Illinois.

Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., 8 Rottman, L. Importance
of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1966, 4, 508-516.

 

 

Webb, N. C. The use of myoelectric feedback in teaching facial
expression to the blind. American Foundation for the Blind,
Research Bulletin, 1974, 27, 231-262.

 

 

Webb, W. W., Matheny, A., 8 Larson, G. Eye movements as a paradigm
of approach and avoidance behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1963. 19, 341-347.

 

Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differ-
ential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psycho-
physics, 1968, 4, 307—312.