The impact of baby schema on perceived attractiveness, beauty, and cuteness in female adults
Tóm tắt
Beauty and cuteness are considered to represent different aspects of attractiveness and to be distinguishable from each other by their respective reliance on neonate and sexually mature features found in attractive faces. In this study, we investigated whether baby schema features in adult faces affect not only cuteness, but also beauty and attractiveness. We also investigated possible differences among attractiveness, beauty, and cuteness, and possible effects of perceived youth on these judgments. Results showed that baby schema features affected judgments of attractiveness, beauty, and cuteness, but that perceived youth did not significantly influence these judgments. Furthermore, the effect of each facial feature differed across rating types with the participants’ naïve interpretation of rating categories. This suggests that beauty predominantly refers to sexual attraction, while attractiveness refers to a non-sexual attraction regardless of participants’ gender. However, gender differences may exist in judging cuteness. Therefore, expressions related to attractiveness may incorporate different elements and this distinction may not be fully shared across gender.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alley TR (1981) “Head shape and the perception of cuteness”. Dev Psychol 17:650–654
Brosch T, Sander D, Scherer KR (2007) “That baby caught my eye… Attention capture by infant faces”. Emotion 7(3):685–689
Cunningham MR (1986) “Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty”. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:925–935
Daibo I (2007) “A scope of cultural consideration of facial communication in social context”. Japanese J Interpersonal Soc Psychol 7:1–10 (in Japanese)
Fink B, Matts PJ (2008) “The effects of skin colour distribution and topography cues on the perception of female facial age and health”. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 22(4):493–498
Fink B, Matts PJ, Roder S, Johnson R, Burquest M (2011) “Differences in visual perception of age and attractiveness of female facial and body skin”. Int J Cosmet Sci 33:126–131
Franklin RG, Adams RB (2010) “The two sides of beauty: laterality and the duality of facial attractiveness”. Brain Cogn 72:300–305
Geldart S, Maurer D, Carney K (1999a) “Effects of eye size on adults’ aesthetic ratings of the faces and 5-month-olds’ looking times”. Perception 28:361–374
Geldart S, Maurer D, Henderson H (1999b) “Effects of the height of the internal features of faces on adults’ aesthetic ratings and 5-month-olds’ looking times”. Perception 28:839–850
Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Gur RC, Sachser N (2009) “Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults”. Ethology 115(3):257–263
Hildebrandt KA, Fitzgerald HE (1979) “Facial feature determinants of perceived infant attractiveness”. Infant Behav Dev 2:329–339
Karraker KH, Stern M (1990) “Infants’ physical attractiveness and facial expression: effects on adults’ perceptions”. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 11:371–385
Keating CF, Randall DW, Kendrick T, Gutshall KA (2003) “Do babyfaced adults receive more help? The (cross-cultural) case of the lost resume”. J Nonverbal Behav 27(2):89–109
Little AC (2012) “Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of infant, adult and cat faces”. Ethology 118(8):775–782
Lobmaier JS, Sprengelmeyer R, Wiffen B, Perrett DI (2010) “Female and male responses to cuteness, age and emotion in infant faces”. Evol Hum Behav 31:16–21
Lorenz K (1943) “Die angeborenen Formen moglicher Erfahrung (Innate forms of potential experience)”. Z Tierpsychol 5:235–409
Luo LZ, Li H, Lee K (2011) “Are children’s faces really more appealing than those of adults? Testing the baby schema hypothesis beyond infancy”. J Exp Child Psychol 110:115–124
Mathes EW, Brennan SM, Haugen PM, Rice HB (1985) “Rating of physical attractiveness as a function of age”. J Soc Psychol 125:157–168
Okayama E, Ricatti F (2008) “Tokidoki, cute and sexy fantasies between east and west: contemporary aesthetics for the global market”. PORTAL J Multidisciplinary Int Stud 5:2
Pfluger LS, Oberzaucher E, Katina S, Holzleitner IJ, Grammer K (2012) “Cues to fertility: perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success”. Evol Hum Behav 33:708–714
Rhodes G (2006) “The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty”. Annu Rev Psychol 57:199–226
Seyama J, Nagayama RS (2007) “The uncanny valley: effect of realismo n the impression of artificial human faces”. Presence 16(4):337–351
Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R, Grandi G, Binelli M, Ferrario VF (2009) “Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive Italian women as compared to normal women”. Angle Orthod 79(1):17–23
Sherman GD, Haidt J (2011) “Cuteness and disgust: the humanizing and dehumanizing effects of emotion”. Emotion Rev 3:245–251
Sprengelmeyer R, Perrett DI, Fagan EC, Cornwell RE, Lobmaier JS, Sprengelmeyer A, Aasheim HBM, Black IM, Cameron LM, Crow S, Milne N, Rhodes EC, Young AW (2009) “The cutest little baby face: a hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces”. Psychol Sci 20:149–154
Tatarunaite E, Playle R, Hood K, Shaw W, Richmond S (2005) “Facial attractiveness: a longitudinal study”. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127:676–682
Volk AA, Lukjanczuk JM, Quinsey VL (2007) “Perceptions of child facial cues as a function of child age”. Evol Psychol 5:801–814
Zebrowitz LA, Olsen K, Hoffman K (1993) “Stability of babyfaceness and attractiveness across the lifespan”. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:453–466
Zebrowitz LA, Fellous J, Mignault A, Andreoletti C (2003) “Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: evidence from connectionist modelling”. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 7(3):194–215