|The motivational salience of infant faces is similar for men and women.|
|Jump to Full Text|
|PMID: 21655195 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE|
|Infant facial features are thought to be powerful elicitors of caregiving behaviour. It has been widely assumed that men and women respond in different ways to those features, such as a large forehead and eyes and round protruding cheeks, colloquially described as 'cute'. We investigated experimentally potential differences using measures of both conscious appraisal ('liking') and behavioural responsivity ('wanting') to real world infant and adult faces in 71 non-parents. Overall, women gave significantly higher 'liking' ratings for infant faces (but not adult faces) compared to men. However, this difference was not seen in the 'wanting' task, where we measured the willingness of men and women to key-press to increase or decrease viewing duration of an infant face. Further analysis of sensitivity to cuteness, categorising infants by degree of infantile features, revealed that both men and women showed a graded significant increase in both positive attractiveness ratings and viewing times to the 'cutest' infants. We suggest that infant faces may have similar motivational salience to men and women, despite gender idiosyncrasies in their conscious appraisal.|
|Christine E Parsons; Katherine S Young; Nina Kumari; Alan Stein; Morten L Kringelbach|
Related Documents :
|18664515 - Exposure to metalworking fluid aerosols and determinants of exposure.
7708975 - Preventable factors and death certification in death due to asthma.
8151825 - Lead poisoning and other causes of mortality in trumpeter (cygnus buccinator) and tundr...
14977115 - Field trials of spinosad as a replacement for naled, ddvp, and malathion in methyl euge...
21975145 - Heated indoor swimming pools, infants, and the pathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic sc...
851485 - The anemia of prematurity. factors governing the erythropoietin response.
|Type: Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Date: 2011-05-31|
|Title: PloS one Volume: 6 ISSN: 1932-6203 ISO Abbreviation: PLoS ONE Publication Date: 2011|
|Created Date: 2011-06-09 Completed Date: 2011-10-05 Revised Date: 2013-06-28|
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 101285081 Medline TA: PLoS One Country: United States|
|Languages: eng Pagination: e20632 Citation Subset: IM|
|University Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.|
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex|
Motivation / physiology*
|017571//Wellcome Trust; //Medical Research Council|
Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One
Journal ID (publisher-id): plos
Journal ID (pmc): plosone
Publisher: Public Library of Science, San Francisco, USA
Parsons et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received Day: 16 Month: 2 Year: 2011
Accepted Day: 5 Month: 5 Year: 2011
collection publication date: Year: 2011
Electronic publication date: Day: 31 Month: 5 Year: 2011
Volume: 6 Issue: 5
E-location ID: e20632
PubMed Id: 21655195
Publisher Id: PONE-D-11-03402
|The Motivational Salience of Infant Faces Is Similar for Men and Women Alternate Title:Motivational Salience of Infant Faces|
|Christine E. Parsons12|
|Katherine S. Young12|
|Morten L. Kringelbach12*|
|Grainne M. McAlonanedit1||
1University Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United
2Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University,
|The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
|Correspondence: * E-mail: Morten.Kringelbach@queens.ox.ac.uk
Contributed by footnote: Conceived and designed the experiments: CEP KSY AS MLK. Performed the experiments: CEP KSY NK. Analyzed the data: CEP KSY NK. Wrote the paper: CEP KSY AS MLK.
Adults are remarkably attuned to the facial features that characterise their young, such as a large rounded forehead, large low-set eyes, a short and narrow nose and a small chin , , . Lorenz ,  argued that humans have a natural attraction to these features and that such an attraction evolved to enhance motivation to engage in caregiving behaviour. We have recently identified a putative neural signature of this ‘parental instinct’ . In species, such as humans, whose young depend so heavily on the early caregiver-infant relationship , this attraction is likely to enhance offspring survival and development , , , . Within this conceptualisation, cuteness is a configuration of visual features that has a specific biological function-promotion of infant nurturance.
Adults’ typical initial response to an infant picture is a smile . Both children and adults consistently prefer pictures of infants over pictures of adults , . Infants are the object of a variety of other nurturing and affectionate impulses, such as high-pitched vocalisations (i.e. “motherese” ), preferential looking , leniency , and protectiveness . This disposition to respond positively to infantile features is intricately linked to caregiving behaviour. Yet, little is known about the nature of perception of the physical properties of a ‘cute’ infant face, and how this shapes our immediate behaviour.
The ability to perceive subtle differences in infant attractiveness has been the focus of some recent work. Women have been shown to be slightly better than men at detecting gradations in manipulated cuteness in infant faces , despite equal performance in detecting emotional valence and age differences . Women have long been credited with having a greater interest in infants and greater skill in interacting with them, e.g., , but gender differences in responding to the young are far from clear cut (see  for a review). Some studies have reported that women are generally more perceptive and responsive to cuteness than are men (e.g., they smile more at a cute infant, ), but these effects have been found to vary across the lifespan, e.g. . One study reported that preference for infantile head shapes was more pronounced in women than in men , while another did not . Given these discrepancies, and the increasing acknowledgment of men’s role in nurturing their infants (e.g., ) investigation of both men and women’s responses to infant faces is warranted.
Adults might be adept at perceiving subtle differences in infant facial configuration, but the question arises, do these differences actually impact upon their behaviour? The predominant behavioural paradigms in the investigation of facial features and cuteness have required participants to consciously rate the attractiveness of infant faces, or make a choice between two. Such paradigms do not tap into the recent scientific progress in understanding the sub-components underlying the evaluation of hedonic stimuli, which has been demonstrated to consist of at least three components, including hedonic appraisal (‘liking’), incentive salience (‘wanting’) and learning, subserved by partially separable neural mechanisms , . We therefore asked whether, beyond simple appraisal, viewing images of infant faces could shape immediate behaviour in an experimental paradigm. In addition to a ‘liking’ task measuring the conscious appraisal, we used a key press ‘wanting’ task to examine the amount of work participants would perform in order to change the relative duration for which they viewed an individual image (see , , ).
We asked whether differences in facial structure are salient when adults respond to ‘real world’, healthy infants falling within the natural occurring range of attractiveness. This is in contrast to recent studies which have used morphed infant faces where specific features have been modified to systematically increase or decrease attractiveness (e.g. , ). The use of these morphed images limits the external validity of studies as differences between images do not reflect natural variation in ‘cuteness’ , .
In order to test whether there is something specific about the way adults respond to infant faces, we also compared men and women’s responses to a set of adult faces. To investigate general responsivity to infants rather than to specifically one’s own infant, we chose to test a population of participants with little experience of caring for young infants.
The experimental procedures were approved by the Oxfordshire Research Ethics Committee B (12/07/2010). Participation was voluntary, and written consent was obtained prior to participation.
Stimuli consisted of a total of 70 images of infant and adult faces (35 of each). The adult stimuli consisted of 18 images of females and 17 images of males. The infant images were obtained from a standardised database described elsewhere  and parental permission was obtained for the use of these images. The use of these images for research purposes was also approved by the Oxford Research Ethics Committee. The adult face images were obtained from several standardised databases [http://pics.psych.stir.ac.uk, 34,35]. All faces were previously rated as showing a neutral expression and were forward facing with comparable direction of eye gaze. In order to use as homogenous a sample of adult images as possible, images of adults of average attractiveness were. All images were presented in grayscale and were matched for size and luminosity. Participants viewed the faces on a computer monitor, such that face stimuli subtended a visual angle of approximately 4×2 degrees.
A sample of 71 healthy participants with little or no experience of caring for young infants took part in this study with informed consent. Thirty-four of the participants were male and 37 female, with an age range of between 17 and 24 years (M = 20.05, SD = 1.45).
We used two measures, a ‘liking’ and a ‘wanting’ task, to capture the dual aspects of appraisal and incentive salience in adults’ hedonic processing of infant and adult faces. The appraisal task required participants to rate the attractiveness of the faces (“You are going to see a series of faces. Your task is to rate how attractive you find each picture.”). This provided a measure of ‘subjective liking’ of the images, similar to the task we have used extensively for measuring ‘liking’ of other hedonic stimuli, [e.g. 36]. The word ‘attractive’ was used based on several considerations. First, we wished to directly compare participants’ ‘liking’ ratings of adults and infants. Using different terms is potentially problematic in this regard. Second, the term ‘attractive’ has been used in a number of previous studies of adults’ responses to infant faces , , , . Third, an independent panel of ten adults rated a subset of the infant faces on two scales: ‘cuteness’ and ‘attractiveness’; ratings were highly correlated (rs = 0.83, p<.0001).
The ‘wanting’ or ‘key-press’ task required participants to key-press to either increase or decrease the relative viewing duration of each image (“You are going to see a series of faces. In this task, you can control how long you view each image for.”). This task probed the incentive salience or ‘wanting’ to view the faces by measuring the amount of work participants are willing to do (and the resultant viewing times) in response to each stimulus, which in some respects was similar to other key-pressing tasks , , , .
In both tasks the participants were presented with a face image on the centre of the screen and a vertical visual analogue scale immediately to the right (see Figure 1). In the ‘liking’ task, participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of images of infant and adult faces using a visual analogue scale. Responses on this scale were measured from +4 ‘Very attractive’ to −4 ‘Very unattractive’. Participants made their rating by using the ‘up’ and ‘down’ keys to adjust the bar. Each stimulus was presented for five seconds and participants rated the 70 stimuli twice each. The order of stimuli was pseudorandomised across participants, by creating four versions of the task with different stimuli orders in each version. Ten participants completed each version. The order of completion of the ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’ task was also counterbalanced across participants.
In the ‘wanting’ task, the default viewing time of each stimulus was 5 seconds and participants could adjust this viewing time according to their ‘work-effort’, i.e. the frequency of key-pressing of either the ‘up’ or the ‘down’ keys. The visual analogue scale again presented on the right of each stimulus provided participants with a real time indication of the viewing time duration similar to an egg timer, with a bar moving downwards over time (the speed of movement could either be slowed or increased by the key-presses). Participants were also told that the key-press task would last for a set duration, independent of their responses. In both tasks, participants responded using the index finger of their dominant hand.
In order to investigate the effects of differences in facial feature configurations on infant cuteness/attractiveness ratings, we measured various dimensions of the infant faces, following the procedure described by Glocker et al. . We measured the length and width of the whole face, as well as the size of individual facial features (namely the length and width of the nose, length and width of the eyes, mouth width and forehead length). In addition to Glocker et al.’s method, we included a measure of eye height in order to obtain a more complete measure of eye size. All measures were calculated as proportional indices relative to overall face width or length (i.e. nose length/face length, nose width/face width, eye length/face length, eye width/face width, mouth width/face width and forehead length/face length). Z-scores of these measures were used to quantify the extent of the ‘infantile features’ in each face. Infant faces were then divided into three groups: high infantile features, average infantile features, low infantile features, taken to reflect ‘cuteness’.
Analyses were conducted using the viewing times and attractiveness ratings averaged across all exposures using SPSS. Figure 2 presents the viewing times and attractiveness ratings for the adult and infant images by participant gender. Viewing time and attractiveness ratings were transformed using log transformations to meet criteria for normality. For the adult faces, there were no significant differences between men and women in attractiveness ratings (t(69) = −1.88 p = 0.07). However, for the infant images, women rated the infants as significantly more attractive than did the men (t(69) = −2.027, p<0.05, d = 0.47). This significant difference in attractiveness ratings was not reflected in the viewing time data; viewing times were strikingly similar for the adult (t(69) = 0.46, p = 0.65) and infant stimuli t(69) = 0.17, p = 0.86). There were no differences between either the attractiveness ratings (t(69) = 0.58, p = 0.56) or viewing times (t(69) = 0.68, p = 0.68) across the adult and infant faces. No other within-gender differences were found across either the rating or viewing measure for the adult and infant faces.
In order to further explore these differences in cuteness/attractiveness ratings to infant faces between men and women, we categorised the structure of the infant faces as high, average and low in infantile features (see Methods). We then examined the attractiveness ratings and viewing times for these three cuteness categories of infant faces by conducting a 3×2 repeated measures ANOVA with infantile features as the within-subject factor and gender as the between-subjects factor; attractiveness ratings and average viewing times were used as the outcome variables (see Figure 3).
For the ‘liking’ measures, no significant interaction between gender and infantile features category was found for the attractiveness ratings (F(1.28, 88.7) = 0.79; p = 0.4). Women did give significantly higher attractiveness ratings than men overall (F(1, 69) = 4.88, p = 0.03). Similarly, there was also a main effect of infantile feature category (F(1.3, 88.7) = 23.79, p<0.0001). Infants in the high infantile features category received higher attractiveness ratings than those in the average (t(70) = 3.9, p<0.0001) or low infantile features categories (t(70) = 5.29, p<0.0001).
For the ‘wanting’ or viewing time data, there was again no significant interaction between gender and infantile features category (F(1.5, 103.9) = 1.16, p = 0.31). In contrast to the attractiveness ratings, men and women had similar viewing times overall (F(1, 69) = 0.08, p = 0.78). Consistent with attractiveness ratings, the main effect of infantile features category was significant (F(1.5, 103.9) = 16.37, p<0.0001). Again, infants in the high infantile features category were viewed for longer than infants in the average (t(70) = 4.5, p<0.0001) or low infantile features categories (t(70) = 4.68, p<0.0001).
It has often been implicitly assumed that women have a greater interest in young infants than men, e.g., , . Hedonic reactions to infants should reflect relative differences in ‘interest’. Recent insights from fundamental neuroscience have demonstrated that hedonic reactions consist of at least two partially dissociable processes of hedonic evaluation (‘liking’) and incentive salience (‘wanting’) . We therefore constructed two behavioural tasks that measure attractiveness (liking) ratings, and the willingness to work, expressed in viewing times (‘wanting’). If women were simply more interested in infants than men, it would be expected that both their ‘liking’, cuteness/attractiveness ratings and their ‘wanting’, viewing times would be higher than men’s. While we did find a significant difference between men and women’s ratings of infant facial cuteness/attractiveness, we failed to find any difference in men and women’s willingness to work to view the infant faces. Critically, women were not merely rating the face stimuli as more attractive than men did: their attractiveness ratings for the adult stimuli were comparable to men’s. Men and women’s viewing times were similar for the adult faces, consistent with viewing times for the infant faces. Are men and women equally sensitive and responsive to natural variations in the degree of infantile features in infant faces? Our analysis of the cuteness/attractiveness and viewing times by category of infantile features suggests that they are. Both men and women not only rated those infants in the high infantile features as most attractive, but also worked to view those infants for the longest duration. This effect was equally apparent for men and women, suggesting that both genders are highly attuned to specific, measurable structural configurations in infant faces. While some previous studies have found that women are more able to discern experimental increased ‘cuteness’ in infant faces than men , , we found no clear cut differences in men and women’s responses to the infants varying within the natural continuum of ‘cuteness’. Interestingly, another study using natural infant stimuli within a dot probe paradigm, found that infant faces captured the attention of men and women equally well .
Women did provide consistently higher attractiveness ratings than men over the three categories. There are several plausible explanations for the divergence between male and female ratings of infant attractiveness. One possibility is that women were less forthright than men in rating infant attractiveness, which is potentially interesting given that women did not differ significantly from men in their mean adult attractiveness ratings. Asking participants to rate infant attractiveness is perhaps the type of sensitive question that raises social desirability issues. Another related possibility is that these measures do indeed tap into the two dissociable processes they were designed to measure: subjective appraisal or ‘liking’ and incentive salience or ‘wanting’ . If this is the case, women may differ from men in their appraisal of infant stimuli but not in their motivation to work to view these stimuli. Either way, our findings underline the importance of considering both subjective appraisal and objective measures of behavioural responsivity to infant cues and other hedonic stimuli. Different networks of brain regions have been shown to subserve these two aspects of hedonic processing, at least where the stimuli are images of attractive men and women . While our findings demonstrate adults' positive appraisal and responsiveness to infantile features, they do not imply that more attractive infants will receive more responsive care, or that less attractive infants will receive less responsive care. We deliberately tested a population with minimal experience of caring for young infants in order to investigate general responsivity to infants, and not to one’s own infant. This is, in a sense, the major limitation of this work: it remains to be seen how these experimental measures of appraisal and motivational salience translate into actual interactions with a young infant. Nonetheless, these two measures are likely to be important components in a parent's behaviour towards an infant, but the link thus far is speculative.
Our findings indicate that both men and women appraise what is colloquially described as a ‘cute’ unfamiliar infant positively, and they will work to see that infant for longer than an infant with less ‘cute’ features. This is in line with previous studies showing that ‘cuter’ infants are rated as more friendly, cheerful, and likeable , , , ,  and are rated as more ‘adoptable’ .
Women’s higher ratings of infant attractiveness relative to men’s is also broadly consistent with previous work demonstrating better ‘cuteness sensitivity’ in women, e.g., . That men and women show a similar level of willingness to work to see 'cute' infants speaks to the issue of the motivational salience of infant faces, an issue not tackled directly in previous studies. In light of recent findings suggesting that men are less sensitive to infant facial configuration than women (e.g., , , ), it is reassuring that both men and women 'want' to view infants for similar durations, suggesting a more equal interest in infants than previously thought.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding: This research was supported by funding from the Wellcome Trust, UK (017571), the TrygFonden Charitable Foundation, and the Medical Research Council. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
|1.||Alley TR. Year: 1981Head shape and the perception of cuteness.Developmental Psychology17650654|
|2.||Alley TR. Year: 1983Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly29411427|
|3.||Hückstedt B. Year: 1965Experimental studies of the infant body image.Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum "Kindchenschema"12421450|
|4.||Lorenz K. Year: 1943Die angeborenen Formen Möglicher Erfahrung. [Innate forms of potential experience].Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie5235519|
|5.||Lorenz K. Year: 1971Studies in Animal and Human Behavior, vol. II.LondonMethuen|
|6.||Kringelbach ML,Lehtonen A,Squire S,Harvey AG,Craske MG,et al. Year: 2008A specific and rapid neural signature for parental instinct.PLoS ONE3e1664 doi:1610.1371/journal.pone.0001664. 18301742|
|7.||Parsons CE,Young KS,Murray L,Stein A,Kringelbach ML. Year: 2010The functional neuroanatomy of the evolving parent-infant relationship.Progress in Neurobiology9122024120363287|
|8.||Bowlby J. Year: 1969Attachment and Loss, Vol 1: Attachment.LondonHogarth Press|
|9.||Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. Year: 1989Human Ethology|
|10.||Hrdy SB. Year: 2005Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding model.Attachment and BondingA New Synthesis932|
|11.||Konner M. Year: 2010The Evolution of Childhood: Relationships, Emotion, Mind|
|12.||Hildebrandt KA,Fitzgerald HE. Year: 1978Adults' responses to infants varying in perceived cuteness.Behavioural Processes3159172|
|13.||Berman PW,Cooper P,Mansfield P. Year: 1975Sex differences in attraction to infants: when do they occur?Sex Roles1311318|
|14.||Fullard W,Reiling AM. Year: 1976An investigation of Lorenz's "babyness".Child Development4711911193|
|15.||Fernald A,Kuhl P. Year: 1987Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech.Infant Behavior and Development10279293|
|16.||Hildebrandt KA,Fitzgerald HE. Year: 1981Mothers' responses to infant physical appearance.Infant Mental Health Journal25661|
|17.||McCabe V. Year: 1988Facial proportions, perceived age, and caregiving.Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces8995|
|18.||Sprengelmeyer R,Perrett DI,Fagan EC,Cornwell RE,Lobmaier JS,et al. Year: 2009The cutest little baby face: A hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces.Psychological Science2014915419175530|
|19.||Lobmaier JS,Sprengelmeyer R,Wiffen B,Perrett DI. Year: 2010Female and male responses to cuteness, age and emotion in infant faces.Evolution and Human Behavior311621|
|20.||Hutt C. Year: 1972Sex differences in human development.Human Development151531705042947|
|21.||Berman PW. Year: 1980Are women more responsive than men to the young? A review of developmental and situational variables.Psychological Bulletin88668695|
|22.||Goldberg S,Blumberg SL,Kriger A. Year: 1982Menarche and interest in infants: biological and social influences.Child Development53154415507172780|
|23.||Gardner BT,Wallach L. Year: 1965Shapes of figures identified as a baby's head.Perceptual and motor skills2013514214286502|
|24.||Ramchandani P,Psychogiou L. Year: 2009Paternal psychiatric disorders and children's psychosocial development.The Lancet374646653|
|25.||Berridge KC,Kringelbach ML. Year: 2008Affective neuroscience of pleasure: Reward in humans and animals.Psychopharmacologyin press|
|26.||Winkielman P,Berridge KC,Wilbarger JL. Year: 2005Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin3112113515574667|
|27.||Dai XC,Brendl CM,Ariely D. Year: 2010Wanting, Liking, and Preference Construction.Emotion1032433420515222|
|28.||Aharon I,Etcoff N,Ariely D,Chabris CF,O'Connor E,et al. Year: 2001Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence.Neuron3253755111709163|
|29.||Levy B,Ariely D,Mazar N,Chi W,Lukas S,et al. Year: 2008Gender differences in the motivational processing of facial beauty.Learning and Motivation39136145|
|30.||Sprengelmeyer R,Perrett D,Young A. Year: 2010Reproductive hormones modulate cuteness processing.Psychological Science21753753|
|31.||Glocker ML,Langleben DD,Ruparel K,Loughead JW,Gur RC,et al. Year: 2009Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults.Ethology115257263|
|32.||Dupuis-Roy N,Fortin I,Fiset D,Gosselin F. Year: 2005Uncovering gender discrimination cues in a realistic setting.Journal of Vision9|
|33.||Rennels JL,Bronstad PM,Langlois JH. Year: 2008Are attractive men's faces masculine or feminine? The importance of type of facial stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3488489318665733|
|34.||WeyrauchYear: 2004MIT-CBCL Face Recognition Database|
|35.||GeorghiadesYear: 2001Extended Yale Face Database|
|36.||Kringelbach ML,O'Doherty J,Rolls ET,Andrews C. Year: 2003Activation of the human orbitofrontal cortex to a liquid food stimulus is correlated with its subjective pleasantness.Cerebral Cortex131064107112967923|
|37.||Crowder JR,Hunter LS. Year: 2004Nursing students' perceptions of infant attractiveness.J Pediatr Nurs1925726615308975|
|38.||Langlois JH,Ritter JM,Casey RJ,Sawin DB. Year: 1995Infant Attractiveness Predicts Maternal Behaviors and Attitudes.Developmental Psychology31464472|
|39.||Stephan CW,Langlois JH. Year: 1984Baby Beautiful - Adult Attributions of Infant Competence as a Function of Infant Attractiveness.Child Development555765856723448|
|40.||Yamamoto R,Ariely D,Chi W,Langleben DD,Elman I. Year: 2009Gender differences in the motivational processing of babies are determined by their facial attractiveness.PLoS ONE4|
|41.||Aharon I,Etcoff N,Ariely D,Chabris CF,O'Connor E,et al. Year: 2001Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence.Neuron3253755111709163|
|42.||Elman I,Ariely D,Mazar N,Aharon I,Lasko NB,et al. Year: 2005Probing reward function in post-traumatic stress disorder with beautiful facial images.Psychiatry Research13517918315993948|
|43.||Harlow HF. Year: 1971Learning to Love|
|44.||Money J,Tucker P. Year: 1975Sexual Signatures: On Being a Man or a Woman9598|
|45.||Kringelbach ML,Berridge KC. Year: 2009Towards a functional neuroanatomy of pleasure and happiness.Trends in Cognitive Sciences1347948719782634|
|46.||Brosch T,Sander D,Scherer KR. Year: 2007That baby caught my eye... attention capture by infant faces.Emotion768568917683225|
|47.||Ritter JM,Casey RJ,Langlois JH. Year: 1991Adults Responses to Infants Varying in Appearance of Age and Attractiveness.Child Development6268822022139|
|48.||Maier RA Jr,Holmes DL,Slaymaker FL,Reich JN. Year: 1984The perceived attractiveness of preterm infants.Infant Behavior and Development7403414|
|49.||Karraker KH,Stern M. Year: 1990Infant Physical Attractiveness and Facial Expression - Effects on Adult Perceptions.Basic and Applied Social Psychology11371385|
|50.||Casey RJ,Ritter JM. Year: 1996How infant appearance informs: Child care providers' responses to babies varying in appearance of age and attractiveness.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology17495518|
|51.||Volk A,Quinsey VL. Year: 2002The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences.Human Nature-an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective13437455|
Previous Document: Spag16, an axonemal central apparatus gene, encodes a male germ cell nuclear speckle protein that re...
Next Document: Three-armed trials including placebo and no-treatment groups may be subject to publication bias: sys...