| Title |
The impact of baby schema on perceived attractiveness, beauty, and cuteness in female adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-0940-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kana Kuraguchi, Kosuke Taniguchi, Hiroshi Ashida |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 78% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 24% |
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 41% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,316,822
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#253
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,962
of 267,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#7
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.