A few years ago, I saw a program on ‘The Learning Channel’ that stated that studies proved that newborns will stare at faces that adults judge to be ‘attractive’ for longer periods of time than they stare at unattractive faces. Is this true?
How do you know what the babies are staring at? It’s hard to believe this is actually true. Does anyone know where this study was published??
Thanks.
Well there is a very famous “Ugly/attractiveness” study which indicated that more symetrical, or attractive people tend to get hired over less symetrical, or homely people. The study included the way children learn, and noted how kindergardners are more apt to pay attention to people who are attractive, than those who are not.
I’ll find the cite. I teach it in Psych 101 - I should know the school who put it out, I want to say Duke but not sure…
Well, this article refers to it obliquely.
Maybe the guy who wrote it would know.
Leslie Zebrowitz has made a career of showing that attractive people are treated better by society, although I don’t think she did that study.
Warning, or course - in studies like these, bad uses of statistics run rampant. My wife as a grad student had to work on a study where the professor had 60 (yes, 60) different models she tested and published the one that showed the best results. Since then, I’ve trusted psychology studies not at all.
UNC-Greensboro did a study where infants were shown drawings of smiley faces – just two circles for eyes and a semi-circular line for a “smiling” mouth. They were also shown pictures where the eye circles and the mouth lines were randomly placed. The infants were given pacifiers while the pictures were shown. They all sucked more vigorously when shown the traditional smiley face, showed little reaction to the randomly-placed “faces”. Had nothing to do with attractiveness – just humaness.
Correlates with our tendency to “see” human faces in inanimate places – the man in the moon, Virgin Mary on a tortilla, etc. We just look for human faces!
Infants respond to human faces & to the faces of those who care for them. The old saying “a face only a mother could love” should actually be “the face only an infant could love.” Bless 'em. They don’t give a damn.
This is just a very, very uneducated guess:
Perhaps, ‘better looking’ people carry themselves with more confidence, and babies notice that.
Not saying I am the sexiest man alive, but I have really, really green eyes. And if I can get a crying baby to make eye contact with me, the crying stops a good 90% of the time. Not a bad tool to pick up desperate single mothers! (LAST SENTENCE—just a joke)
heh heh
that’s cute.
Just a slight aside: I’ve a plain face, myself – but I find babies are fascinated by the glasses I wear.
Babies love smiling faces - not sure about the attractive part.
I met a baby whose entire family is light-haired. The kid wouldn’t leave me alone – I have long dark, chesnut-coloured hair. The kid had never seen before and thought was the most amazing thing.
So the attraction may have more to do with “outstanding features” rather than attractiveness. A baby might like the symmetry of an attractive person’s face, but would probably also find someone with a hairlip to be enthralling. Someone who is just plain, would be well… plain.
I saw something on tv about universal beauty traits. They said that people all over the world, including tribal peoples, are attracted to high cheekbones, clear skin, wide smiles, etc. It appeared that they thought that these are just preferences that we are born with.
well, there’s been a few studies over the last decades which found that infants do look longer at faces deemed ‘attractive’ by adults. they found that symmetric faces (which are generally called attractive by adults) were stared at longer by infants.
why? the jury’s out on that. could be some intrinsic mechanism that responds to faces or some sort of bizarre rapid learning through environmental exposure.
All I know is, whenever I walk into a room with babies in it, here’s what I see:
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Kinda creeps me out sometimes.
aasna starts to make a snarky remark at ethilrist, but then notices that ethilrist is 5000 posts bigger then her.
aasna slinks quietly into the shadows.
