Cuteness: Difference between revisions

'''Cuteness''' is a subjective term describing a type of [[Physical attractiveness|attractiveness]] commonly associated with [[youth]] and [[Human physical appearance|appearance]], as well as a scientific concept and analytical model in [[ethology]], first introduced by Austrian [[Ethology|ethologist]] [[Konrad Lorenz]].<ref>Lorenz, Konrad. ''Studies in Animal and Human Behavior''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971</ref> Lorenz proposed the concept of '''baby schema''' (''Kindchenschema''), a set of facial and body features, that make a creature appear "cute" and activate ("release") in others the motivation to care for it.<ref name="Glocker2">Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. [http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/9115.figures-only "Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women."] ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – U.S.A'' 2009 June 2;106(22):9115–9119.</ref> Cuteness may be ascribed to people as well as things that are regarded as attractive or charming.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130216110859/http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cute "cute, adj."]. OED Online. March 2012. Oxford University Press. (accessed April 29, 2012).</ref>

| footer = Example of two very cute [[Baroque]] anglesangels from southern [[Germany]], from the mid-18th century, made of lindenwood, gilded and with original polychromy, in the [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]] (New York City)

Konrad Lorenz argued in 1949 that infantile features triggered nurturing responses in adults and that this was an evolutionary adaptation which helped ensure that adults cared for their children, ultimately securing the survival of the species. Some later scientific studies have provided further evidence for Lorenz's theory. For example, it has been shown that human adults react positively to infants who are [[stereotype|stereotypically]] cute. Studies have also shown that responses to cuteness—and to facial attractiveness in general—seem to be similar across and within cultures.<ref>Van Duuren, Mike; Kendell-Scott, Linda; Stark, Natalie. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070927105817/http://www.winchester.ac.uk/view.ashx?Item=15993 "Early Aesthetic Choices: Infant Preferences for Attractive Premature Infant Faces"] (PDF), King Alfred's College. Archived from [http://www.winchester.ac.uk/view.ashx?Item=15993 the original].</ref> In a study conducted by Stephan Hamann of [[Emory University]], he found using an [[Functional magnetic resonance imaging|fMRI]], that cute pictures increased brain activity in the [[Orbitofrontal cortex|orbital frontal cortex]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Agreed, Baby Pandas Are Cute. But Why? |author=Schneider, Avie |url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/10/169057467/agreed-baby-pandas-are-cute-but-why |newspaper=National Public Radio |date=10 January 2013 |accessdateaccess-date=13 January 2013}}</ref>

The perceived cuteness of an infant is influenced by the [[gender]] and behavior of the infant.<ref name=Koyama>{{cite journal|last=Koyama|first=Reiko |author2=Takahashi, Yuwen |author3=Mori, Kazuo|title=Assessing the cuteness of children: Significant factors and gender differences|journal=Social Behavior and Personality|year=2006|volume=34|pages=1087–1100|doi=10.2224/sbp.2006.34.9.1087|issue=9}}</ref><ref name=Karraker>{{cite journal|last=Karraker|first=Katherine|author2=Stern, Marilyn|title=Infant physical attractiveness and facial expression: Effects on adult perceptions|journal=Basic and Applied Social Psychology|year=1990|volume=11|pages=371–385|doi=10.1207/s15324834basp1104_2|issue=4}}</ref> In the Koyama et al. (2006) research, female infants are seen as cute for the physical attraction that female infants display more than male infants;,<ref name=Koyama /> whereas research by Karraker (1990) demonstrates that a caregiver's attention and involvement in the male infant's protection could be solely based on the perception of happiness and attractiveness of the child.<ref name=Karraker />

The gender of an observer can determine their perception of the difference in cuteness. In a study by Sprengelmeyer et al. (2009), it was suggested that women were more sensitive to small differences in cuteness than the same aged men. This suggests that reproductive [[hormone]]s in women are important for determining cuteness.<ref name="Sprengelmeyer, R 2009 PP 149-154">{{cite journal | last1 = Sprengelmeyer | first1 = R | last2 = Perrett | first2 = D. | last3 = Fagan | first3 = E. | last4 = Cornwell | first4 = R. | last5 = Lobmaier | first5 = J. | last6 = Sprengelmeyer | first6 = A. | last7 = Aasheim | first7 = H. | last8 = Black | first8 = I. | last9 = Cameron | first9 = L. | last10 = Crow | first10 = S. | last11 = Milne | first11 = N. | last12 = Rhodes | first12 = E. | last13 = Young | first13 = A. | year = 2009 | title = The Cutest Little Baby Face: A Hormonal Link to Sensitivity to Cuteness in Infant Faces | url = | journal = Psychological Science | volume = 20 | issue = 9| pages = 149–154 | pmid = 19175530 | doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02272.x| citeseerx = 10.1.1.468.7485 | s2cid = 1040565 }}</ref>

This finding has also been demonstrated in a study conducted by T. R. Alley in which he had 25 undergraduate students (consisting of 7 men and 18 women) rate the cuteness of infants depending on different characteristics such as age, behavioral traits, and physical characteristics such as head shape, and facial feature configuration.<ref name="Alley"/>

Borgi et al. stated that young children demonstrate a preference for faces with a more "infantile facial" arrangement i.e. a rounder face, a higher forehead, bigger eyes, a smaller nose and a smaller mouth.<!-- This was found in the "BABY SCHEMA AND CUTENESS PERCEPTION" section. --> In a study that used three- to six-year-old children, Borgi et al. (2014) asserted that the children showed a viewing time preference toward the eyes of "high infantile" faces of dogs, cats and humans as opposed to "low infantile" faces of those three species.<!-- This was found in the paragraph immediately before the "Discussion" section. --><ref>Borgi, M. et al. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. In Frontiers in Psychology. 5(411).</ref>

A study by Konrad Lorenz in the early 1940s found that the shape of an infant's head positively correlated with adult caregiving and an increased perception of "cute". However a study by Thomas Alley found no such correlation and pointed out faulty procedures in that study. Alley's study found that cephalic head shape of an infant did induce a positive response from adults, and these children were considered to be more "cute". In his study, Alley had 25 undergraduate students rate line drawings of an infant's face. The same drawing was used each time, however the cephalic head shape was changed using a cardioidal transformation (a transformation that models cephalic growth in relation to ageing process) to adjust the perceived age; other features of the face were not changed. The study concluded that a large head shape increased perceived cuteness, which then elicited a positive response in adult caretaking. The study also noted that perceived cuteness was also dependent on other physical and behavioural characteristics of the child, including age.<ref name="Alley">{{cite journal|last=Alley|first=Thomas|title=Head shape and the perception of cuteness|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1981-32782-001|journal=Developmental Psychology|year=1981|volume=17|issue=5|pages=650–654|doi=10.1037/0012-1649.17.5.650}}</ref>

Melanie Glocker (2009) provided experimental evidence that infants' cuteness motivates caretaking in adults, even if they are not related to the infant.<ref name=Glocker>{{cite journal|last=Glocker|first=Melanie|author2=Daniel D. Langleben |author3=Kosha Ruparel |author4=James W. Loughead |author5=Ruben C. Gur |author6=Norbert Sachser |title=Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults|journal=Ethology|year=2008|volume=115|pages=257–263|doi=10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x|pmid=22267884|issue=3|pmc=3260535}}</ref> Glocker asked individuals to rate the level of cuteness of pictured infants and noted the motivation that these participants had to care for the infants. The research suggested that individuals' rating of the perceived cuteness of an infant corresponded to the level of motivation an individual had to care for this infant.<ref name=Glocker /> Glocker and colleagues then used [[functional magnetic resonance imaging]] (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby faces with higher content of baby schema features, generated more activation in the [[nucleus accumbens]], a small brain area central to motivation and reward.<ref name="Glocker2" /> This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (''Kindchenschema'') may motivate ("release") caretaking behavior. Furthermore, cute infants were more likely to be [[adoption|adopted]] and rated as more "likeable, friendly, healthy and competent" than infants who were less cute. There is an implication that baby schema response is crucial to human development because it lays the foundation for care givingcaregiving and the relationship between child and caretaker.<ref name=Glocker/>

Sherman, Haidt, & Coan (2009), in two [[experiment]]s, found that exposure to high cuteness [[Stimulus (psychology)|stimuli]] increased performance when playing the [[Operation (game)|Operation]] game, a task that requires extreme carefulness.<!--This is in the 1st sentence, of the last paragraph, of the left column, of page 285. The part about the Operation game being used for Experiment 1 is in the last sentence, of the last paragraph, of the left column, of page 283, and the 2nd-to-last sentence, of the 1st paragraph, of the right column, of page 283. The part about the Operation game being used for Experiment 2 is in the 1st sentence, of the 2nd paragraph, of the right column, of page 284. The phrase "the two sets of stimuli used in Experiment 1," in the 1st sentence, of the 3rd paragraph, of the left column, of page 284, makes it clear the study regards the images of puppies and kittens in Experiment 1 as stimuli, a plural noun, rather than a stimulus, a singular noun.--> The study said that the shift in behavior toward greater carefulness is consistent with the viewpoint that cuteness is something that releases the human caregiving system.<!--This is in the 2nd sentence, of the 1st paragraph, of the right column, of page 285.--> The study said that the shift in behavior toward greater carefulness also makes sense as an [[adaptation]] for caring for small children.<!--This is in the 2nd sentence, of the 1st paragraph, of the right column, of page 285.--><ref name="Sherman2009">Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J.A. (2009). Viewing Cute Images Increases Behavioral Carefulness. <i>''Emotion, 9</i>''(2). Pages 283 - 285. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24259618_Viewing_Cute_Images_Increases_Behavioral_Carefulness Link].</ref>

Doug Jones, a [[visiting scholar]] in anthropology at [[Cornell University]],<!-- His qualifications are given on the first page of the article. --> said that the faces of monkeys, dogs, birds and even the fronts of cars can be made to appear cuter by morphing them with a "[[cardioid]]al" ([[Heart (symbol)|heart-shaped]]) [[Transformation (function)|mathematical transformation]]. Jones said that negative cardioidal strain results in faces appearing less mature and cuter by causing facial features at the top of the face to expand outward and upward while causing features at the bottom of the face to contract inward and upward.<!-- This was at the bottom of page 728. --><ref name="DJones">{{cite journal|last1=Jones|first1=D.|display-authors=etal|title=Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply]|journal=Current Anthropology|date=December 1995|volume=36|issue=5|pages=723–748|url=http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=fchd_facpub|accessdateaccess-date=22 January 2017|doi=10.1086/204427|s2cid=52840802}}</ref>

Mark J. Estren, Ph.D. in psychology from the [[University at Buffalo]],<!--These credentials are on the page after the index at the end of the book.--><ref>Estren, M.J. & Potter, B.A. (2013). Healing Hormones: How to Turn on Natural Chemicals to Reduce Stress. Oakland, CA: Ronin Publishing, Inc. {{ISBN|978-1-57951-180-7}}</ref> said cute animals get more public attention and scientific study due to having physical characteristics that would be considered [[neoteny|neotenous]] from the perspective of [[Human development (biology)|human development]]. Estren said that humans should be mindful of their bias for cute animals, so animals that would not be considered cute are also valued in addition to cute animals.<!--This was written from reading the article's abstract.--><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Estren | first1 = M.J. | year = 2012 | title = The Neoteny Barrier: Seeking Respect for the Non-Cute | url = | journal = Journal of Animal Ethics | volume = 2 | issue = 1| pages = 6–11 | doi=10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0006}}</ref>

William R. Miller, assistant professor of [[biology]] at [[Baker University]] in [[Kansas]],<!--Miller's credentials are in the italicized paragraph, at the bottom-left, of page 384.--> said that most people, upon seeing [[tardigrades]], say that they are the cutest [[invertebrate]]s.<!--This is in the last sentence, of the 1st, non-italicized paragraph, of the left column, of page 384.--><ref>Miller, W.R. (2011). Tardigrades: These ambling, eight-legged microscopic "bears of the moss" are cute, ubiquitous, all but indestructible and a model organism for education. <i>''American Scientist, 99</i>''(5). Page 384. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23019349.pdf Link].</ref>

Kenta Takada (2016) said that Miyanoshita (2008) said that the design of [[chocolate]]s made to look like [[dynastinae|rhinoceros beetle]] [[larva|larvae]] is a design that is both cute and disgusting.<!--This is in the 4th-to-last sentence, of the 1st paragraph, of the left column, of page 154.--><ref>Takada, K. (2016). Gummi Candy as a Realistic Representation of a Rhinoceros Beetle Larva. <i>''American Entomologist, 62</i>''(3). Page 154. [https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/62/3/154/1710486 Link].</ref><ref>''[https://www.fecava.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FLYER_Extreme-breeding_RVau21_06_18_BAT.pdf Breeding for extreme conformations]''</ref>