Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Activated by AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox2 | via #UCB_webform_linked |
m outdated HTML elements |
||
Line 64:
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 giving 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.
== Cultural significance ==
Line 80:
Sherman, Haidt, & Coan (2009) used images of [[puppy|puppies]] and [[kitten]]s for the study's "high cuteness" [[Stimulus (psychology)|stimuli]] in two [[experiment]]s.<!--Experiment 1's high cuteness stimuli being puppies and kittens is in the 3rd sentence, of the 2nd paragraph, of the left column, of page 283. Experiment 2's low cuteness stimuli being dogs, lions, and tigers is in the 1st sentence, of the last paragraph, of the left column, of page 284. Experiment 2's other stimuli (other than "low-cuteness," meaning its high cuteness stimuli) being puppies and kittens is the last sentence, of the last paragraph, of the left 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.--><ref name="Sherman2009" />
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.
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.
Evolutionary biologists suspect that "puppy dog eyes", a trait absent from wild wolves, were unintentionally selected for by humans during the [[domestication of dogs]]. <ref>[https://www.wbur.org/npr/733615938/scientists-explain-puppy-dog-eyes Scientists Explain Puppy Dog Eyes]</ref>
| |||